Jim Saxton

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Thornberry amendment for a number of reasons, but one of the primary reasons is that my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) would delay the funding provided through CARA for 5 years. Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford to delay this program any longer. Mr. Chairman, this program is not for us; this program is for our children and our grandchildren and their children. This program is to provide a quality of life, like the quality of life we have or the quality of life that we would like to restore for future generations. Mr. Chairman, delaying this 5 years in States like the one I represent means that hundreds of thousands of more acres of land disappear under parking lots, under housing developments, thousands and thousands and thousands of acres going to development that this bill, that this process will permit us to save. It is for our children. It is for their environment. It is for their quality of life. To arrive at the point that we have today, the amendment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) in one fell swoop would short-circuit this process. This process has been ongoing for years; the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), all of us have had input over a long period of time. We have taken care to provide for resources for every State. Yes, coastal States with lots of coastal areas in high populations get a little more, and that is because the problems that I described are enhanced in those kinds of States. If Members could all come home with me and ride from the northern part of the State I represent, New Jersey, to the southern part of the State, and if Members could have done that 30 years ago, and then do it again today, they would see the results of development pressure. This bill will provide for enhancement of wildlife, enhancement of quality of life and be a good, a very good thing for our children, our grandchildren and their children.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today the National Wildlife Refuge System Centennial Act. I am joined in this important effort by the distinguished chairman of the House Resources Committee, Don Young, the ranking Democratic member of the Committee, George Miller, the ranking Democratic subcommittee member, Eni Faleomavaega, the Dean of the House of Representatives, John Dingell, and our colleague, Duke Cunningham. Since becoming chairman of the House Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, I have held many hearings on the operation, maintenance, and management of our nation's National Wildlife refuge System. This unique system of Federal lands provides essential habitat for hundreds of fish and wildlife species, including more than 258 species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. The first wildlife refuge was created at Pelican Island, FL, in 1903 by President Theodore Roosevelt. Today the System has 521 refuges and 38 wetland management districts, which are located in all 50 States and the 9 Commonwealths, Territories, and island possessions. These units range in size from the smallest of less than one acre, the Mille Lacs National Wildlife Refuge in Minnesota, to the largest of 19.3 million acres in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. Money for refuge land acquisition primarily comes from the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund. During the past 5 years, my subcommittee has taken a leadership role in approving legislation to improve our National Wildlife Refuge System. Without question, the most important change was the enactment of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. This landmark Act, P.L. 105-57, was sponsored by Chairman Don Young and, for the first time, it created a comprehensive ``organic law'' governing the management of the world's largest and most diverse network of lands devoted to fish and wildlife. This historic measure also created a statutory shield to ensure that hunting and fishing and other forms of wildlife-dependent recreation will continue within the Refuge System, and it facilitates these traditional activities where compatible with conservation. The second improvement, which I was honored to sponsor, was the National Wildlife Refuge System Volunteer and Community Partnership Enhancement Act. This legislation will improve the infrastructure of the Refuge System by encouraging volunteer activities. In 1999, over 28,000 individuals volunteered more than 1.3 million hours, which was worth more than $11 million in services. These services included staffing visitors centers, conducting hunter safety classes, landscaping, and operating heavy equipment. My bill, which was signed into law on October 5, 1998, will encourage additional volunteers by establishing up to 20 pilot projects for the purpose of hiring full- time volunteer coordinators. It also made it easier for interested individuals and groups to donate money or services to a particular refuge. Finally, during the past 4 years, a bipartisan group of Members, including myself, Don Young, George Miller, Eni Faleomavaega, Neil Abercrombie, John Dingell, and others have vigorously lobbied the House Appropriations Committee to increase funding to reduce the Refuge System's operations and maintenance backlog. Together with the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE), we were successful in persuading our Appropriations colleagues to increase funding for this account by $86 million, which is a down payment on the maintenance backlog. While these increases were significant, there is much work to be done to reach the goal of having a fully operational Refuge System by 2003. The legislation I am introducing today recognizes the vital importance of the Refuge System and the fact that the System will celebrate its centennial anniversary in 3 years. Under the terms of this bill, a Commission will be established to promote awareness of the System; develop a long-term plan to meet the priority operations, maintenance and construction needs of the System; and to improve public use programs and facilities. The National Wildlife Refuge System Centennial Commission would be composed of 11 voting members, including the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In addition, the chairman and ranking minority members of the House Resources and Senate Environment and Public Works Committees, plus the congressional members of the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, would serve as ex offico members. The Commission would be charged with the responsibility for preparing a plan to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the System, coordinating activities to celebrate that event, and hosting a conference on the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Commission would issue annual reports and would terminate no later than September 30, 2004. Finally, this bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to prepare and submit to the Congress a long-term plan to address priority operations, maintenance, and construction needs of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Mr. Speaker, I anticipate that my subcommittee will conduct a hearing on this legislation in the near future. The American people deserve the finest Refuge System in the world. This bill is an appropriate next step in our efforts to ensure that the legacy of Theodore Roosevelt, one of our Nation's greatest conservationists, will live on in the years ahead. Ahead, I want to thank my distinguished colleagues for joining with me in this endeavor, and I urge enthusiastic support for the National Wildlife Refuge System Centennial Act.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. Let me make two quick points. The first is that this process started with this bill being funded with a new tax. The new tax was on recreational equipment; everything from binoculars to backpacks to off- the-road vehicles to anything else one could think of that had to do with outdoor recreation. I did not think that was acceptable, and I did not support it. And I told the chairman so, and I told the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) so, and they worked out what I think is a very fair system. Point number two that I want to make is that Members from California who support the destructive amendment of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) are voting to cut $67 million from California's share of this pie. Members from Florida voting for the Regula amendment would cut $68 million from Florida's share of this program. Members from my home State of New Jersey should realize that we would lose $20 million. And colleagues from New York, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) is, that State would lose $40 million. Now, I want everybody to think about that when they go back home this fall. Colleagues from Virginia will lose $17 million; those from the State of Washington will lose $15 million; and those from Puerto Rico will lose $8 million. Now, I have this sheet, which I will put in front of the podium, and when my colleagues all come down to vote on this amendment, I hope they will take a look at this sheet before they cast their votes.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, the net effect of this amendment is to take $500 million out of the Land and Conservation Fund, which monies are used as one of a number of tools that we have to preserve open space: acquisition. Now, I understand to some in this room that the word ``acquisition'' has a negative meaning, but to those of us who represent States and communities, or let us just say on the East Coast between Boston and Florida, this tool is extremely important. In my district, for example, every year I go to see the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and I ask for funds to expand the Forsythe Refuge; Ed Forsythe was my predecessor and they named the wildlife refuge after him. We have so much development pressure in New Jersey that we have programs to retire development easements. We have so much development pressure in New Jersey that we have used State Green Acres money to buy land. We have so much development pressure that we use Land and Water Conservation monies to preserve open spaces through acquisition. It is usually sensitive land. It is usually land where we as human beings have no business building housing developments or shopping centers or parking lots or whatever other uses these lands may have. Without these funds, Members will lose a good deal of the abilities they have to help the folks back home live in an environment that has conservation policy that is good for the folks back home. So as well-intended as this may be, it is destructive to the process that we are all involved in in trying to maintain a quality environment with open space in the coastal States that are highly developed and under development pressure.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, on November 10 the House Committee on Resources, under the leadership of our good chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), approved the most important conservation legislation, I believe, in over a decade. I was proud to be a part of the 37 votes in support of this bipartisan, common sense, mainstream, well-negotiated legislation. And it was primarily because of the efforts of the chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), that we were able to get to this bipartisan position, which makes all the sense in the world to any mainstream Member of either party. CARA represents an historic opportunity for Congress to provide consistent and dedicated funding to States to conserve fish and wildlife, protect and restore coastal habitats and marine resources, and to meet the ever- increasing public need for outdoor recreational opportunities. CARA will provide $2.8 billion in permanent budget authority from the outer continental shelf oil and gas reserves for the protection and restoration of impacted coastal habitats, which is very important to constituents and residents in coastal areas. Coastal areas, I might add, like the most densely populated State in the country, where I happen to live, New Jersey. Second, fish and wildlife habitat conservation is an important objective. Third, the improvement of outdoor recreational opportunities, which is quickly becoming the most popular way Americans spend their leisure time will be fostered. And, four, urban park renewal and historic preservation will be enhanced. New Jersey continues to lose more open space to development and is now the most densely populated State in the Nation, as I said a minute ago. Funding under CARA would enable State and local governments to continue their efforts to preserve open space and conservation of natural resources while creating and restoring habitat for the diversity of species in New Jersey's wildlife management areas and wildlife management areas all across the country. Open spaces, conservation, wildlife enhancement are key words in describing this mainstream legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the chairman and vote for this landmark legislation that will be an investment and endorsement to protect our natural resources for future generations to inherit.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Shuster and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for their hard work and dedication to the National Estuary Program (NEP) and their support of reauthorization of H.R. 1237 with the requested amount of funding. H.R. 1237, which I introduced, will reauthorize the NEP at $50 million annually for FY 2000 through FY 2004 and allow Federal funds to be used for implementation, in addition to development of Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans (CCMPs.) Congress recognized the importance of preserving and enhancing coastal environments with the establishment of the National Estuary Program, as section 320 of the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1987. This popular program has not been authorized since 1991, but appropriately continues to be funded. The NEP's purpose is to facilitate state and local governments' preparation of ``Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans'' (CCMPs) for threatened and impaired estuaries. In support of this effort, section 320 authorizes the EPA to make grants to States to develop CCMPs for 30 designated estuaries across the country. While the NEP has been successful in developing these CCMPs (20 of which have been completed), the law does not authorize appropriations for implementation of the CCMPs--a deficiency which threatens to slow our progress in restoring these estuaries. My own State of New Jersey has three approved sites in the NEP, one of which, Barnegat Bay, lies primarily within my District. The Barnegat Bay watershed drains from a land area of approximately 550 square miles. Over 450,000 people live within the Barnegat Bay watershed. That population doubles in the summer as people flock to the shore. The continued economic health of the Barnegat Bay watershed is dependent on the continued health and natural beauty of its waters. The Barnegat Bay Estuary is not only a vital component of New Jersey's tourist industry, but is an important natural resource that supports populations of commercially and recreationally significant fish and rare and endangered species. Non-point source pollution, while diffuse, is cumulatively the most important issue in addressing adverse impacts on water quality and the health of living resources in the Bay. The contaminants found in rain and snowmelt, as well as groundwater, contribute to non-point source pollution. The Final Comprehensive and Conservation Management Plan for Barnegat Bay will be available to the public in May 2000 for public review. But without the additional funding for this program, as well as explicitly permitting the NEPs to use Federal funds for implementation of their programs, the Federal government would have absolved itself of responsibility as a partner with the states in protecting and enhancing the Nation's most endangered habitats. Therefore, I would like to thank my colleagues for supporting this important bill and protecting our Nation's natural resources for future generations.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate Mr. Thomas R. Caffrey of Tuckerton, New Jersey. Mr. Caffrey was a first prize winner in C-SPAN's American Presidents: Life Portraits Viewers' Contest. Mr. Caffrey's poem on President John Adams is worthy of high praise. President Adams served as our second president from 1797 to 1801. President Adams, as one of our nation's Founding Fathers helped shape a newly formed nation with his intellect and vigor. His personal correspondence with Thomas Jefferson have delighted scholars for years as they provide a personal glimpse of these two very important Presidents. Mr. Caffrey's poem encapsulates the life and times of President Adams. I would like to enter into the Record Mr. Caffrey's poem, ``Our Dearest Friend''. Our Dearest Friend (A poem of John Adams) (By Thomas R. Caffrey) From Puritan seed a seminal birth to Ancient, he was for the ages. A blend of the heavens and merciless Earth To a man needing many assuages The genesis of this patriot as Founder will yet be revealed. Portending rejection of British flat his fate about to be sealed. So stubborn affixing himself to the law in defense of the British who fired. Yes justice was blind and everyone saw that murder had not transpired. While sufferings mixed with physical his angst was most profound. So loving his country, he's practical; can America make it uncrowned? A man in the midst of Freedom's vortex The lover of laws because they protect and make `That Chair' a rising sun. Declaring their freedom with principles inspiring Jefferson's pen. The Wordsmith's text would soon convulse all parties, including them. Though stunned by the Lion's thundering roar, some cowed by fear of this mother. Undaunted courage he'd force to the show, a rally for most of the others. Prevailing at Yorktown made him celebrate, Conquest! On his date of birth! Yet sober he was knowing full well his station, the Treaty would reflect his worth. In Europe he felt the growing unease of absence from `Portia'--his `Friend'. He often would stir for his quick release, when will this humility end? The tenuous peace was forged with his mettle, in Paris the year '83. The subsequent years would provoke much nettle. In Britain he yearned to be free. Soon after he mixed into dear Quincy's soil, a call came for services, more. For eight years his self-doubt would burden the toil. `It's hopeless', he'd like to implore. Before him the Giant of Mount Vernon, the deified A Priori. In whose shadow he often fell striving for his own glory. Leading was harder than Founding, it seemed. Not service but politics he loathed. Betrayals were bad, from Jefferson worse, impossible when they were betrothed. A premature move back home was his fate, no destiny to be a two-term. Oft' ringing his hands and imploring his mate, his worth would she please affirm? He passed many by on the farm at Peacefield, to dust they went, compost for life. As his time drew near, posterity sealed, he relented, and thus joined his wife. Today we think mainly of First and of Third, on Rushmore and our currency. Remember Our Friend, a man of his word, whose heartsleeve was for you and me.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, this has been an interesting debate; but I would like to remind the last string of 1\1/2\ minute or 2-minute speakers on the other side that the purpose of the Humphrey-Hawkins discussion is to talk about the Federal Government and the potential effect the Fed has on the economy and the potential effect that our government has on the economy. Let me make five points, five reasons why the economy is doing good. And maybe some people will feel good about it, I hope they will, because we have done some things right around here, both Republicans and Democrats, Members of the House and the administration. I already talked about point number one. Lower inflation actually improves growth. And the Federal Reserve has gone out of its way to target inflation. It has brought interest rates down along with inflation and that has provided a lift for our economy. Number two. Government spending has actually fallen as a percentage of GDP. This is an important point. As a matter of fact, in 1992, our government spent 22 percent of our GDP. Today, we spend 19.5 percent of our GDP. And members of the Committee on the Budget, led by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), should say a cheer for themselves for that point. Number three. Lower tax rates remain in place. In spite of the hyperbole coming from the other side about Republicans that want to the cut taxes, marginal rates are still lower than they were in the 1960s, the 1970s, or the 1980s; and it is a primary factor in helping us lift the economy. Number four. Investment has worked to expand capacity, particularly technological change, which has increased productivity. American workers today produce more per man-hour and woman-hour than ever before because of the technological changes that have taken place, another important factor in improving our economy. Finally, global competition and freer trade have fostered growth. As we have opened markets around the world, as we have encouraged exports to take place, we have opened those new markets and created new opportunities for businesses all across our country and, therefore, opportunities for workers all across our country, another major boost to our economy. So, Mr. Chairman, when speaker after speaker gets up on the other side, they are ignoring the facts, they are ignoring the progress that we have made in terms of spending, in terms of taxing, in terms of fighting inflation. All of these are important factors that need to be discussed. So I am pleased to have had the opportunity to close, Mr. Chairman, to make these points.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer). (Mr. BUYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), the chairman of the Committee on Budget.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, before we were delayed for the proceedings that just concluded, I was involved with the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) in carrying out the statutory rights that we have as members of the Joint Economic Committee to discuss the budget in the context of our economy and the various aspects of the economy that may have something to do with policies of our government. I would like to turn to another subject. I discussed Fed policy at some length earlier, and I would like to spend a few minutes discussing one other set of issues that had to do with the potential effect of high oil prices on the economy as we move forward. As I said before, overall economic conditions are strong. Rising oil prices and gasoline prices are one of several economic issues, however, that concerns millions of Americans. This week Energy Secretary Richardson began a trip to OPEC nations to try to convince them to lower sky-high oil and gas prices. I believe the administration should release some oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, like several other Members do, but there is another source of pressure also available to help American consumers. A review of the situation reveals that U.S. taxpayer dollars are being provided to nations involved with the OPEC conspiracy to raise oil and gas prices. Consumers across America are outraged when they pull up to the pump and view each day or each week the rapid price increase in home heating fuel and gasoline prices over the last few months. In the section of the country where I live, that is the Northeast, I am from New Jersey, of course, we are especially hard hit because of our dependence on home heating oil. OPEC's supply restrictions are a primary reason for these price hikes, I think all Americans know that today, and many Americans are justifiably angry at the oil producing nations and their allies. These citizens would be even more angry if they knew their hard-earned tax dollars were being funneled to key oil producing nations by the United States Government. That is right, billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars are being funneled to oil producers such as Algeria, Venezuela, Indonesia, and Mexico. These U.S. resources are first contributed to the international monetary fund, the IMF, and then lent to various nations at cut-rate rates. The oil producers are now borrowing from the IMF at interest rates of about 4.7 percent, much lower interest rates than typical taxpayers can get on their home or their car or their credit card loans. Interest rates this low do not make any economic sense. Subsidies are being provided by taxpayers, our constituents, to these borrowing nations who are Members of OPEC who are forcing up the price of petroleum. Many argue that this is a way to provide foreign aid or to promote U.S. interests. However, the IMF is not supposed to be an aid agency, and much of its activity does not reflect U.S. interests. Only a year ago I had to act to force the IMF to stop a planned mission to Iraq, another oil producing Nation that is also an enemy and on the U.S. list of states that sponsor terrorism. If taxpayer subsidies to several of the oil-producing nations cause them to argue against OPEC supply reductions, this would be consistent with the argument that U.S. subsidies to the IMF and its borrowers were in our Nation's best interest. However, this is not the case. These oil producers cooperate with OPEC even after receiving IMF loans. In other words, they take our money and act against us anyway. In fact, at least four of these oil-producing nations have been among the most active borrowers of the IMF over the last 2 decades. One of these, of course, is Algeria, traditionally one of the hard-line price hawks in OPEC. I am currently drafting legislation to address this situation, and I hope to have the grand support of Members from both sides of the aisle. We will address the situation by exerting pressure on oil-producing nations that are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers through the IMF. The U.S. Government should tell these countries in no uncertain terms that past aid extended through the IMF demands reciprocity now. The perpetual IMF borrowers should be reminded that the U.S. is the largest single source of IMF funds and that the U.S. will not support continued IMF borrowing by unfriendly nations. The U.S. Government, including the U.S. representative on the executive board of the IMF, should pressure oil- borrowing producers to undercut the OPEC cartel and let market forces lower oil prices. U.S. taxpayers are under no obligation, Mr. Chairman, to subsidize OPEC or its allies as they conspire to keep oil prices high. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I guess I should begin by suggesting to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) that that was about the best political speech I ever heard on the floor. I am not sure what it had to do with the budget, but it was a great speech anyway. The purpose of the Humphrey-Hawkins section of this budget debate is to reflect on perhaps what the economy is doing and what it is that the Federal Government has done in some way to effect that. I would just like to reflect on those thoughts for a few minutes here. Mr. Chairman, the performance of the economy in recent years has been very, very strong, and I think that all Americans have noted for one reason or another, either because they watched job growth, perhaps they watched the rate of unemployment fall, or perhaps they have watched income go up. But the performance has been strong and people are working all across the country. It is very encouraging. During the expansion, the Federal Reserve's policy has been gradually moving to price stability and has resulted in declines of inflation, which is hardly perceptible today, and as a result, lower interest rates, and, of course, the lowest unemployment in many decades. Those things have happened all at the same time. Now, let me repeat, we do not usually hear about low rates of inflation, low unemployment, and low interest rates all at the same time. That is a very interesting phenomenon, and I think one that we ought to say if we have done something collectively to make that happen that, maybe, we ought to continue to do the things that made it happen. The thrust of this policy has been very successful. Although I have some differences with recent explanations of Fed policy overall, over the last 2 decades, we have seen very successful economic growth with the exception of one 9-month period in 1990, 1991. The health of the economic performance has also generated higher than expected revenues for the Federal Government. As a result, we get to have this discussion today about how we are going to spend money over the next fiscal year in the atmosphere of surpluses. State and local governments have also enjoyed a fiscal bonus from the combination of positive economic trends. The benefits of the United States economic growth have also been seen outside the country, and this has produced very positive results for the citizens of our country as well as citizens of many other countries. All of this, including the role of Chairman Greenspan, is more or less well recognized by most Americans. What is less well known is the specific policy framework which the Federal Reserve has used to achieve the positive results that I have just described. Chairman Greenspan's exceptional leadership of the Fed is associated with the framework of policy-making known as inflation targeting. That is right. The Fed has had its sites set on creating an environment in which low rates of inflation will take place. As the chairman and I have discussed at previous JEC hearings, the Federal Reserve has essentially adopted an informal policy of inflation targeting and used it to gradually reduce or squeeze inflation out of our economy. Now, serious discussion of this policy might be useful to explain what the Fed under Chairman Greenspan has done and how it has fostered the extraordinary economic expansion we enjoy. Personal judgment and wisdom have played an important role, and that, of course, is the personal judgment of Chairman Greenspan. But the framework for policy- making is even more important. The success of Fed policy is a combination of several factors, but more understanding is needed about the basis of the policy framework itself. Formal inflation targets are a narrow range of permissible increases in a broad-priced index expressed as annual percentage increases. For example, an inflation target could be defined as an increase in a retail price index of between, say, zero to 2 percent. We have been within that zero to 2 percent on many occasions for the last couple of years. Price stability improves the operation of the price system and promotes economic and efficient growth. As noted previously, during this expansion, inflation has been reduced, but unemployment has fallen as well. Low employment and low inflation, low rates of inflation are mostly unheard of or have been mostly unheard of in economic circles until the last decade or possibly a little bit longer. In addition to its successful monetary policy, recently the Federal Reserve has made further strides toward increased transparency. Another important factor. Perhaps my colleagues have noticed with me, however, that things have begun to change just a little. We have had five interest rate increases in the last year by the Fed. In recent months, the public explanation of Federal policy has increasingly tended to shift from trends in price measures to tight labor market conditions and excessive economic growth related to GDP. In other words, the Fed now appears to be less targeted on inflation and more targeted on economic growth and potential GDP growth. In other words, the recent explanations of Fed policy are reminiscent of the notion of a Phillips curve trade-off, which essentially said that good economic growth always causes high rates of inflation. We have proven over the last decade that that is false, and, yet, there are indications that the Fed is returning to that framework for some reason. This shift towards the view that solid labor market and economic conditions may increase the potential for inflation seems to be associated with the changing composition of the Federal Reserve Board. As new members have come on board, things have begun to change. Although Chairman Greenspan has relatively new colleagues on the board that seem to have a somewhat Keynesian perspective, I hope he is able to avoid the mistakes that this point of view is prone to produce. I hope that we will be able to continue on the path that we have, which has produced this budget situation where we can debate this budget in terms of a surplus rather than the deficits that persisted for so many years. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate Mr. Thomas R. Caffrey of Tuckerton, NJ. Mr. Caffrey was a first prize winner in C- SPAN's American Presidents: Life Portraits Viewers' Contest. Mr. Caffrey's poem on President John Adams is worthy of high praise. President Adams served as our second President from 1797 to 1801. President Adams, as one of our Nation's Founding Fathers helped shape a newly formed nation with his intellect and vigor. His personal correspondence with Thomas Jefferson have delighted scholars for years as they provide a personal glimpse of these two very important Presidents. Mr. Caffrey's poem encapsulates the life and times of President Adams. I enter into the Record Mr. Caffrey's poem, ``Our Dearest Friend''. ``Our Dearest Friend'' (A poem of John Adams) (By Thomas R. Caffrey) From Puritan seed a seminal birth to Ancient, he was for the ages. A blend of the heavens and merciless Earth To a man needing many assuages The genesis of this patriot as Founder will yet be revealed. Portending rejection of British flat his fate about to be sealed. So stubborn affixing himself to the law in defense of the British who fired. Yes justice was blind and everyone saw that murder had not transpired. While sufferings mixed with physical his angst was most profound. So loving his country, he's practical; can America make it uncrowned? A man in the midst of Freedom's vortex imploring the thirteen to one. The lover of laws because they protect and make `That Chair' a rising sun. Declaring their freedom with principles inspiring Jefferson's pen. The Wordsmith's text would soon convulse all parties, including them. Though stunned by the Lion's thundering roar, some cowed by fear of this mother. Undaunted courage he'd force to the show, a rally for most of the others. Prevailing at Yorktown made him celebrate, Conquest! On his date of birth! Yet sober he was knowing full well his station, the Treaty would reflect his worth. In Europe he felt the growing unease of absence from `Portia'.--his `Friend'. He often would stir for his quick release, when will this humility end? The tenuous peace was forged with his mettle, in Paris the year '83. The subsequent years would provoke much nettle. In Britain he yearned to be free. Soon after he mixed into dear Quincy's soil, a call came for services, more. For eight years his self-doubt would burden the toil. `It's hopeless', he'd like to implore. Before him the Giant of Mount Vernon, the deified A Priori. In whose shadow he often fell striving for his own glory. Leading was harder than Founding, it seemed. Not service but politics he loathed. Betrayals were bad, from Jefferson worse, impossible when they were betrothed. A premature move back home was his fate, no destiny to be a two-term. Oft' ringing his hands and imploring his mate, his worth would she please affirm? He passed many by on the farm at Peacefield, to dust they went, compost for life. As his time drew near, posterity sealed, he relented, and thus joined his wife. Today we think mainly of First and of Third, on Rushmore and our currency. Remember Our Friend, a man of his word, whose heartsleeve was for you and me.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, recently a blue ribbon commission set forth its bipartisan recommendations on reform of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank. The commission's chairman, noted economist Allan Meltzer, worked for months in the most accommodating and fair way with all of the commissioners to maintain a process of honest intellectual inquiry and collegiality. Votes were taken along the way that established overwhelming bipartisan consensus on all of the major issues. The resulting report addresses some of the most difficult and challenging issues in international economics, and proposes a number of serious and substantive reforms of the IMF, World Bank, and regional development banks. Reasonable people can and do disagree on these highly complex issues, but generally do so on the basis of facts, evidence, and analysis. Unfortunately, however, even before the report was released, a highly coordinated political effort was initiated to attack the commission's report with outlandish charges and inflammatory rhetoric. These attacks generally were uninformed by any familiarity with the substance or tone of the majority report, not to mention the difficult financial issues related to the IMF and World Bank. These attacks only serve to discredit those who made them, and the use of such issues as a political football reflects a lack of responsibility and concern about the future of these institutions. The following article published in the prestigious Financial Times recently shows how these deplorable attacks on the commission have been perceived, and do no credit to those who make them. [From the Financial Times (London), Mar. 10, 2000] Politics of Aid It is occasionally difficult for outsiders to grasp just how poisonously partisan U.S. policymaking has become. That this should be the case in domestic matters is neither surprising nor particularly worrisome. But the collapse of bi-partisanship in crucial areas of foreign policy is another matter. The response in Washington to the report from the international financial institutions advisory commission is a perfect--and disturbing--case in point. Take, for a moment, not the politics of the majority report, but its substance. It does not propose the abolition of the International Monetary Fund. Nor does it suggest the end of foreign aid. On the contrary, it defines a role for the IMF as lender-of-last resort and suggests deep debt relief and a significant increase in U.S. budgetary support for the poorest countries, ``if they pursue effective programmes of economic development''. Though simplistic in important respects, the report does represent an attempt to define a role for the international institutions and a case for aid that makes sense today. Since this comes from a group dominated by Republicans, the rational response must be that this represents progress. Maybe there could even be a new bi-partisan consensus. At least there would be no harm in exploring that possibility. That is not happening. In an egregious example of Washington politics at its worst, Richard Gephardt, the notoriously protectionist House minority leader, complained that the report ``illustrates an extreme neo-isolationist attitude'' towards the IMF and the World Bank. ``Pots'', ``kettles'', ``calling'' and ``black'' come to mind. True, this is a radical report. The most controversial recommendations on the IMF are that it should cease long-term lending to the poorest countries and should provide emergency assistance almost exclusively to countries that have pre- qualified for it. Similarly, it suggests that the World Bank should cease to be a lender to middle-income countries with access to private markets. These ideas do go too far, but they are not crazy. Given willingness to compromise, they could be the basis for discussion between the two sides. The alternative is certainly worse. Continued bitter partisan disagreement, with one side committed to defense of the status quo and the other to radical transformation, must make the environment for these institutions extraordinarily difficult. The world urgently needs a U.S. consensus on policy towards the international financial institutions. This report is at least the basis for a discussion--and jaw jaw is certainly better than yet more partisan war war.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the Coral Reef Conservation and Restoration Partnership Act of 2000. I am joined in this effort by the distinguished gentleman from American Samoa, who is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, along with 12 other bipartisan cosponsors. Coral reefs support the economies of many local communities throughout the Atlantic Ocean, Carribean Sea, and Pacific Ocean. Coral reefs provide important areas for tourism, diving, fishing, scientific research and offers potential life saving pharmaceutical advances to treat human diseases. Unfortunately, many of our coral reef areas are threatened by a variety of natural impacts and human activities including coral disease, hurricanes, destructive fishing practices, over fishing, pollution, and changing ocean conditions. Under ideal circumstances, coral reefs can take decades or more to recover, and it is critical that we address the most serious problems facing these valuable marine areas. In cases where damage has occurred, we need to develop the technologies to help repair and restore coral reefs. Further, we need to improve our abilities to recognize areas that are susceptible to coral reef loss. This requires developing comprehensive maps of U.S. coral reef resources using new remote as well as using satellite data to monitor coral reef change. Last year, I introduced H.R. 2903, the Coral Reef Conservation and Restoration Act, which was based on a bill approved by the House of Representatives in the 105th Congress. The Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans held a hearing on H.R. 2903 on October 21, 1998. The bill I am introducing today replaces that legislation and incorporates suggestions from that hearing, as well as provisions from H.R. 3133, the Coral Reef Protection Act, which was introduced by my friend and colleague from American Samoa, Eni Faleomavaega. Over the last several months, I have worked closely with him to craft the Coral Reef Conservation and Restoration Partnership Act. This bill represents a major step forward in this nation's efforts to conserve valuable coral reef ecosystems. The Coral Reef Conservation and Restoration Partnership Act represents a combination of the best ideas for enhancing and conserving coral reefs. The bill greatly assists ongoing efforts to understand, map and conserve U.S. coral reefs. Our bill authorizes $15 million per year for coral reef conservation, for a total of $60 million over four years. This level of funding is consistent with the FY 2001 budget request of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The bill establishes a grant program to provide funding for coral reef projects carried out in local communities, States and U.S. Insular Areas that have limited sources of funding. Eligible grantees include local and State governments, certain nonprofit groups and educational institutions. A grant partner can receive up to 50 percent Federal matching funds for a variety of projects, such as mapping, monitoring, assessment, restoration and law enforcement. The Secretary of Commerce is given flexibility in the match requirements for small projects carried out in the Insular Areas. The bill also provides statutory authority for the Coral Reef Task Force, which was established by Presidential Executive Order 13089. The Departments of Interior and Commerce are the designated Task Force co- chairs. The co-chairs can jointly designate the governors of the States and Territories to serve on the Task Force. The Task Force is charged with coordinating Federal agency activities, establishing a national coral reef action strategy, developing a comprehensive mapping, monitoring and assessment program for U.S. coral reefs, and providing regular reports to Congress on activities to conserve coral reefs. Finally, our bill authorizes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to carry out a variety of coral reef-related conservation activities, including restoration, mapping, and monitoring. The proposed legislation recognizes NOAA's important role in managing coral reef resources, and authorizes ongoing activities consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act and the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. Sine the Year of the Reef in 1997, I have been working to enact legislation that would focus the necessary resources to protect and restore coral reefs. I believe that the Coral Reef Conservation and Restoration Partnership Act will accomplish this goal, and I intend to work to ensure that this bill is signed into law. It is essential that we work to conserve our coral reef ecosystems for future generations. These ecosystems are the marine equivalent of the rain forest, rich in biological diversity and they provide innumerable benefits to the Nation. I urge my colleagues to join with us by co-sponsoring this important measure.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to fundamentally change the way the International Monetary Fund (IMF) operates. The bill is an outcome of a 2-year JEC research program that has included eight Joint Economic Committee (JEC) studies and reports and 5 hearings on the IMF and its operations. The bill, entitled the ``IMF Reform Act of 2000,'' expands on my IMF Transparency and Efficiency Act of 1998, a version of which became law in that year. The legislation I am introducing today builds on previous efforts to provide more transparency and efficiency in IMF operations. The IMF is far too secretive and its use of pervasive interest rate subsidies is economically indefensible. IMF finances must become transparent, and its policy of extremely low interest rates, currently under 5 percent, for countries such as Russia and Indonesia must be ended. Such uncreditworthy countries should not be able to borrow at interest rates below the cost of funds of IMF donors such as the United States. My bill would mandate IMF financial transparency and IMF lending at market interest rates, and would also reduce the maturity of loans to less than one year. IMF lending would be restricted to crisis lending only. Furthermore, IMF lending safeguards are needed to end the IMF traditional ``see no evil, hear no evil'' approach to potential corruption. The IMF's continued lending to countries that have falsified loan documents or other information is very hard to justify to taxpayers. Strict accounting controls and safeguards should be instituted to prevent misuse, and if insufficient further lending should be halted. This bill would also improve transparency by requiring a reorganization of the public financial statements of the Fund. As a former IMF research director recently observed, ``the Fund's jerry- built structure of financial provisions has meant that almost nobody outside and, indeed, few inside, the Fund understand how the organization works, because relatively simple economic relations are buried under increasingly opaque layers of language. This is the very point I have made for over two years in pressing for greater transparency in IMF finances, and it is good to see agreement on this point. Over the last two years our research at the JEC has uncovered a number of fascinating facts about how the IMF is financed, IMF subsidies, and IMF lending practices. I look forward to a substantive and vigorous debate on IMF reform based on this research and facts. There will be other points of view and other legislative ideas, but I am convinced that this bill includes the right basic ingredients of IMF reform. As usual, I plan to use every opportunity to advance these ideas into law, as with the IMF reforms enacted into law in 1998 and 1999.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate the Delran High School swim team for winning its third straight South Jersey Championship and second straight state championship. The Delran swim team dynasty is an excellent example of high school athletes performing at their peak level. Seldom does a team win a championship, even more rare are back to back championships. It takes extraordinary teamwork, dedication, and perseverance to become a championship team. I applaud the Delran High School swim team's efforts. I would also like to recognize the following Delran swim team members: Mike Haigh, Steve Kroculick, Rachel Craft, Danielle Hoey, Jenny Kroculick, Karl Scheimreif, Gerall Tieman, Michelle Aleszczyk, Karlee Scheimreif, Jen Tregl, Lauren Schmidt, Danielle Kennedy, Brandon Peer, Craig Tieman, Anne Kennedy Caityln Hoey, Ryan Hannon, Pat Reynolds and Joey Iannuzzi. Perhaps the most important role of any team is that of the one played by the coach. Delran's coach, Michael Kennedy, molded and trained this formidable championship swim squad. Coach Kennedy's efforts cannot be overlooked and should be commended. Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating this special group of individuals. Their efforts have brought pride to their community, families and high school.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, on February 2, I was tending to my ill mother and missed rollcall No. 7. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on final passage.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 3308.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, finally, we are considering S. 1866, the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System Act. The late Senator John Chafee was instrumental in the creation of this program in 1982, and he remained one of the program's biggest supporters up until his untimely death earlier this year. The late Senator Chafee, in his role as ranking member and later chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, was a guardian of this System's integrity, and worked tirelessly to prevent any unnecessary encroachment into the System. Senator Chafee served the people of Rhode Island with great distinction for over 20 years. It is a fitting tribute to his name to name the Coastal Barrier Resources System in his honor. I urge my colleagues to vote aye on this measure. (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, coastal barriers are dynamic ecosystems and are prone to frequent moving and shifting as the result of storms and other natural processes. Despite their vulnerability, these areas are attractive locations to live in and are popular for vacation destinations. Congress approved the Coastal Barriers Resources Act of 1982 to protect these areas by establishing a system of barrier units that are precluded from receiving Federal development assistance, including Federal flood insurance. The System is administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Maps depicting the various units are adopted by Congress, and any changes to the boundaries of System units require legislative action. The System includes 274 otherwise protected areas. Otherwise protected areas include lands that are held for conservation purposes by the Federal, State, and local governments or private conservation groups. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 34 adopts maps drawn by the Fish and Wildlife Service that correctly portray the boundaries of the Cayo Costa State Park in Florida, and this is supported by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Committee on Resources majority and minority. H.R. 34 passed the House of Representatives as part of H.R. 1431 on September 21, 1999. Mr. Speaker, I believe H.R. 34 corrects a true mapping error, and I strongly urge the passage of this legislation. (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)