Jim Saxton

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would just say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), I thank him for taking this time to bring this very important issue before the House and, indirectly, before the American people. We just returned from a break. I had plenty of time, ample time, back home to talk with my constituents, and in fact traveled around the country a bit to talk with others from other people's districts. The report that the gentleman makes reference to that is the Hans Blix report I think speaks volumes to the questions that I was asked as I made my way around my district and around other people's districts. The basic question was: How do we know, or how does the administration know and how will the Congress help to determine what our policy should be toward Iraq when the inspectors cannot find any weapons, any weapons of mass destruction? This report speaks volumes to this. However, before this report even came out, there were very strong indications here in the Congress in the hearings that the Committee on Armed Services held, both closed hearings and open hearings, where members of the administration, representatives of the Department of Defense, and representatives from our intelligence apparatus or institutions would come before us and would say, here is what we know. Without going into the specifics of what we heard in those closed sessions, this report that the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter) has gone to great lengths to describe, which we have heard about through the media all day, verifies much of the information that we learned during those sessions earlier this year, actually in the fall. Also, I think it is very interesting to point out that yesterday the Secretary of State in a speech in Switzerland said something that I think is extremely important on this same question of how do we know if we cannot find the weapons. The Secretary of State said simply this: we have known for a long time that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. After all, he used them in the war against Iran. After all, he used them against his own people, that is, chemical weapons, which the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) referred to here just a short time ago. Then the Secretary of State went on to say that the question is not and the job of the weapons inspectors is not to find the weapons; the job, as designated in Resolution 1441, is to seek the cooperation of the Iraqi Government in proving that they have destroyed their weapons. That is where the Iraqi Government has been lacking. The Iraqi Government has steadfastly denied having any weapons, but has failed to offer an iota of proof. For example, if chemical weapons have been destroyed, why can we not talk to the people who destroyed them? If there are no biological weapons, if those biological substances have been destroyed, where were they destroyed? Show us. Let us talk to the people that destroyed them.

Mr. SAXTON. This seems to me to be just what Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, was talking about when he said that the question really is when, on the one hand, the Iraqi Government says there are no biological or chemical or nuclear weapons, why then on the other hand will they not show us evidence to prove that? And the answer seems to me, in light of the Blix report, quite simple: these weapons really exist, and therefore they cannot prove that they do not. So I think that the answer to the question that my constituents and people that I talked to in other parts of the country over the break, the answer to the question is quite evident. The answer is that these weapons do exist, just as we have maintained for years, and in particular in the last month. So both Secretary Powell and Hans Blix in different words came to the same conclusion. Hans Blix says on this subject, ``In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these weapons exist.'' We have assumed, based on evidence that was gathered by the Committee on Armed Services during the fall of this year, that they continue to exist. Another question which I think is important, and I think this report bears on this question as well, my constituents and people around the country ask me: What do the French, the Germans, the Russians, and the Chinese know that we do not? They are part of the United Nations Security Council, as well. I say that the evidence that is pointed out in the Blix report should be taken very seriously and taken to heart by the French and the Germans and the Russians and Chinese, because they have as much at stake in this as we do. This report, which speaks volumes, is an extremely important document. I think one of the statements in the report by Hans Blix, who has had an opportunity, obviously, to review the 12,000 pages which the Iraqi Government forwarded in terms of its supposed accuracy as an accurate report on the condition of their weapons of mass destruction program, Hans Blix says, we have seen this all before. It is essentially 12,000 pages copied from the transmissions that were given to previous teams of arms inspectors, so the Iraqis have offered us nothing new here. In fact, they have shown us once again that they are, as Hans Blix said publicly today, not prepared to endorse the concept of disarmament. The Bush administration, the President himself, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Powell, have all maintained in different ways for months that we have to do something to engage this problem. The Blix report from an independent United Nations-appointed inspection team has now verified the contentious situation that actually exists within the Iraqi Government today. I am pleased and again I want to thank the gentleman from California for taking this time so that he and I together can share this information with our colleagues, and indirectly with the American people.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I just would like to add that earlier today in a news report I saw or heard that the Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, suggested that the inspectors need more time. Also, the Secretary of State today indicated that if there was going to be more time, it would not be much; but there is going to be more activity on the part of the inspectors. I would say this: I suspect that the people who are listening to this are not in a position to answer these questions. But if Saddam Hussein or his foreign minister or somebody was listening, I would say to them that we know that they had thousands of artillery shells that were capable of carrying chemical substances that would kill people to their targets. They say they have destroyed them. If you have destroyed them, show us where they were destroyed, show us where the remnants of them are, and let us talk to the people who did it. Let us talk to the people who destroyed them. If you do not have chemical weapons, show us how you destroyed them. Show us the people, let us talk to the people that destroyed your chemical weapons. That is how we verify. If you do not have biological weapons, show us the disposition of what you had and let us talk to the scientists, let us talk to the personnel that destroyed it, because we know you had it, and we believe you still have it today. And if you are serious about making statements that you do not have it, that these weapons do not exist, then show us how they were destroyed. And with regard to their nuclear weapons program, we know that the Iraqis imported aluminum tubular material that is designed and built specifically for the production of nuclear material. If those no longer exist, show us how you destroyed them and let us talk to the scientists and let us talk to the personnel who destroyed them. We have not seen any of these things, and we have not talked to any of these people, or the inspectors have not, I should say. I heard today another statement that this process is not about finding weapons, it is about developing trust. It is about developing trust between the Iraqi Government and the rest of the governments of the world. This is how we develop trust, by verifying your statements so that we can trust. And so I hope that this process will move forward. The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and I are sometimes asked by people why we favor going to war. We do not favor going to war. We favor dismantling the weapons of mass destruction that the Iraqis have, and we have supported the process of inspections. We have supported the process of investigation. We have supported the process of questioning. We have supported the process of asking questions as to where these materials are, whether they have been destroyed. And it is only as a last resort that we would ever advocate using military force. The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) has a son in the Marine Corps. The last thing in the world the gentleman wants to do is to see our country in another military conflict. Just last Friday I went to Paris Island where I proudly watched my nephew Curt graduate from basic training in the Marine Corps. The last thing I want to see is Curtis in Iraq or anyplace else fighting a war that can be averted by cooperation between people and cooperation between countries and the development of trust. So once again I give the floor to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter). I hope that the Iraqis will in the next very short period of time cooperate with the United Nations and the leadership of various countries around the world.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, let me take a minute at the outset to talk a little bit about the individual after whom this bill is named. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) comes from Arizona. After the announcement of the gentleman's retirement, this bill was named the Bob Stump Military Authorization Bill of 2003. Let me discuss the lifetime service of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) that many Members may not know about because it is quite remarkable. At the age of 16 in 1943, during of course World War II, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) joined the Navy and for the rest of the war he played a very active role taking part in the invasion of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, and of course those were very dangerous places to be in those days. But having known the gentleman from Arizona for the last 18 years, dangerous places have never fazed him. He certainly is not a bashful guy with respect to those types of things. In 1959, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) ran for the first time for the Arizona State legislature and worked his way through the State legislature until he became, in the early 1970s, the President of the State Senate. In 1977, he came here to Congress and became a member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the Committee on Armed Services, and again worked his way to the chairmanship of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and then on the Committee on Armed Services. Announcing his retirement made us sad, but this bill, the Bob Stump Defense Authorization Bill of 2003, is a tribute to a gentleman with a great lifetime of service to this country and we all thank him for it and want him to know we will miss him. One other thing about this bill which I think is extremely important, working through this bill with the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), this bill worked through an open process with a whole series of compromises, compromises that perhaps did not leave anybody on either side terribly happy, but it was the best we could do with the amount of money that we had at our disposal. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction, I worked with the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Synder) and others to craft the legislation in a way that we could do the best with the dollars that we had available to us, and I think we have done that. Other compromises involved operational kinds of things. For example, this bill includes funding for 13 additional C-17s in 2003. The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and I probably did not think that was enough; but again, with the dollars we had available to us, we did what we could. Actually with regard to this subject of the C-17, I happen to think that with the Army transformation going forward and the ability to deploy to a necessary area within the required time, according to the Army which is 96 hours, I do not think that we will have near enough C- 17 airplanes even when the total complement, which is currently 180, is procured. I think the number is probably closer to 300 airplanes that we are going to need, and perhaps some day we will get there. Today, we have our sights set on too few and are getting them too slow, but that is the nature of compromise. Still it is a good bill in this global atmosphere, worthy of the support of every single Member on both sides of the aisle. I ask Members to support this bill.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about one of America's key foreign policy priorities in this new era--our relationship with India, a democracy with more than one billion people. U.S.-India relations continue to expand and to grow deeper in many areas, from economic and trade relations, to political and diplomatic ties; from the promotion of democracy internationally, to cooperation in such areas as environmental protection, health care, the exploration of outer space and the development of information technologies. Two areas in which our bilateral relationship has made particular progress are security cooperation and partnership in the international campaign against terrorism. One tangible example of this newfound cooperation is taking place right now in Alaska. The second Indo-U.S. Joint Military Exercise began September 19 and will continue until October 11. The aim of the joint exercise is to learn from each other's experience and procedures towards achieving interoperability. Troops from the two countries are carrying out para-drops, scouting/airborne assault missions and progressed with various levels of joint firing exercises. The first joint airborne military exercise between the two countries was held at Agra, India in May of this year. I'm pleased to report that the distinguished Indian Ambassador to the U.S., Mr. Lalit Mansingh, traveled to Alaska on October 7, to witness the exercises. The Ambassador met Brigadier General John M. Brown III, Commander of the U.S. Army Alaska at Fort Richardson, who expressed his appreciation of the professionalism, discipline and adaptability of the Indian armed forces. Defense cooperation between our two countries has emerged as one of the most important dimensions of the overall U.S.-Indian bilateral relations. A major joint naval exercise, named ``Malabar IV'' was successfully completed in the Indian Ocean last week. The Executive Steering Groups of all the three defense services are scheduled to meet again later this year to develop plans for additional joint exercises, training and other areas of cooperation. Another recent example of our joint commitment for a more stable and secure world was the U.S.-India Security and Non-Proliferation Dialogue held in New Delhi September 23-24. India continues to make substantial progress in meeting U.S. non-proliferation goals and is also committed to vigorously enforcing stringent export controls on dual-use technologies. Mr. Speaker, since last September 11, the struggle against the international terrorist threat has been an overriding priority in all of our international relations. As President Bush told the world with admirable clarity, ``Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists.'' India has clearly risen to the occasion and made it clear that it stands with us and against the terrorists--without any ambiguity. In the year since September 11, 2001, India and the U.S. have forged an ever-closer partnership in the struggle against international terrorism--a partnership that had actually began in January 2000 with the establishment of the U.S.-India Joint Working Group on Counterterrorism. The Commission has met five times since, and high- level consultations between key officials are ongoing. Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged by the Bush Administration's recognition of the importance of India as a growing ally of the United States. The pace of bilateral engagement since President Bush took office has been unprecedented. The National Security Strategy of the United States, transmitted by President Bush to Congress in early September as a declaration of the Administration's policy, calls India ``a growing world power with which we have common strategic interests.'' The report further states: ``The Administration sees India's potential to become one of the great democratic powers of the twenty-first century and has worked hard to transform our relationship accordingly.'' Our President and Prime Minister Vajpayee of India have established a strong working relationship, which symbolizes the friendship and partnership between our countries. We welcomed Prime Minister Vajpayee's visit to the United States last month for the U.N. General Assembly meeting. During his stay in New York, the Prime Minister met with President Bush, and also attended commemoration ceremonies for 9/ 11--a further indication of the deep sympathy and strong sense of solidarity that the Indian government and people feel regarding the attacks on America. At their November 2001 meeting, President Bush and Prime Minister Vajpayee issued a joint statement outlining the broad scope of bilateral relations. The statement affirmed their commitment to complete the process of qualitatively transforming bilateral relations in pursuit of their many common goals in Asia and beyond. In addition to the increasing exchanges and technical cooperation in the defense and security areas, the President and Prime Minister also stressed the importance of policies to enhance the economic and commercial ties between our nations, and agreed to dialogue and cooperation in the areas of energy, the environment, health, space, export controls, science and technology, including biotechnology and information technology. A major part of the human dimension to our bilateral relationship is the Indian-American community. Numbering more than 1.7 million, the community has played a leading role in bringing together our two great democracies. The community has also worked to educate us, the elected Representatives of the United States, about the importance of U.S.- India relations to build the security and prosperity that will benefit both of our peoples and create a more stable world.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of the resolution, while I certainly hope that it will never be used. Madam Speaker, in 1991, when the coalition broke off the fight with Saddam's army northeast of Kuwait City, I was curious as to why that happened. And in garnering an understanding later, I understood it was because the United States and the coalition partners played by the rules. The United Nations had authorized certain activities, we carried out those activities, and we understood that the U.N. set the rules for that conflict and we abided by them. But I also had the opportunity a week or so later to be a part of the first civilian delegation to go to Kuwait City after the war, and I saw something different. I saw how Saddam Hussein ignored the rules, ignored the rules of warfare, ignored the rules of humanity, ignored the rules of being a human being. I saw how he burned the city, how he destroyed the homes, how he executed innocents. As a matter of fact, let me just share this one few-minute story with my colleagues. We were hosted during that trip to Kuwait City by a citizens group who showed us a videotape that had been taken a week or so earlier, while the Kuwaitis still occupied the city. And it was a videotape of the Iraqi military marching a young man out, tying his hands behind him on a post, and without a blindfold shooting him, firing-squad style. And has he lay there drooped on the pole, the leader of the firing squad walked over to him with a handgun and shot him one more time in the head. It was enough to make our group cry and to realize what a success it had been expelling such a despot from Kuwait. And of course during the war with Kuwait, the war with Iraq at that time, Saddam decided to attack two other countries. He attacked the Saudis with SCUDs and he attacked the Israelis with SCUDs, both Tel Aviv and Haifa. Innocent people were subject to SCUD attacks. And, of course, in 1980 through 1998, during the war with Iran, he used weapons of mass destruction. He killed people with gas by the thousands. And so this is the kind of a guy that we dealt with, where we realized we had to have a northern no-fly zone to protect his own people, the Kurds, and a southern no-fly zone to protect his own people, the Shiites. So I guess I would make two points in kind of finishing up here. We know from history the nature of tyrants, and Saddam has demonstrated time after time that he is a typical tyrant of our time and one who has to be dealt with, apparently, as a tyrant. We know that he rules by fear. In fact, the Ba'thist regime is held together only by fear. They gassed the Kurds, as we all know, their own people. They execute anyone who poses an opposition to the Ba'thist party, even Saddam's own family. So I say to my colleagues, we know what Saddam is like. The second point I would make is that while Saddam has not changed, something else has. Something else has changed a great deal, despots of the past. The Hitlers, for example, by and large, killed people one at a time. If an individual did something they did not like, or in Hitler's time if someone was a Jew, or they said something that was against him, he would simply shoot them and think nothing of it. But that has changed because Saddam has the potential to kill people by the thousands. So we tried to deal with him as a possessor of weapons of mass destruction in the conventional way through the U.N. 16 resolutions, and here is the list: In 1991 we started by saying in a resolution through the U.N., Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War. He did not do it. In 1991, a second resolution, Iraq must unconditionally accept the destruction, removal or rendering harmless under international supervision of all chemical or biological weapons. He did not do it. In April 1991, a resolution, Iraq must immediately end repression of its own civilization. He did not do it. On August 15, 1991, Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council deems Iraq to be in full compliance. He did not do it. On October 11, 1991, Iraq must cooperate fully with the U.N. and IAEA inspectors. He did not do it. In 1994, Iraq must cooperate fully with U.N. weapons inspectors. He did not do it. On March 27, 1996, Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of mass destruction to the U.N. and IAEA. He did not do it. Beginning in 1996, we passed resolutions in the U.N. that said Iraq must cooperate fully with U.N. weapons inspectors. Did he not do it. In June 1997, Iraq must give immediate unconditional, unrestricted access to U.N. officials. He did not do it. A similar resolution on March 2, 1998. He did not do. September 9, 1998, Iraq must cooperate fully with U.N. and IAEA weapons inspectors. Again, he did not do it. On two more occasions, once in 1999 and once later that year in 1999, Iraq must fulfill its commitment to run Gulf War prisoners and cooperate with U.N. inspectors, and he did not do it. So for those who say give Saddam Hussein one more chance, I have to disagree. I think he has had plenty of chances. I hope that a big vote will occur on Thursday and show Saddam Hussein that this body stands together against tyranny.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, regretfully, I was not present for business before the House on September 9, 2002. Had I been here, I would have voted in support of rollcall votes Nos. 375, 376, and 377.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend a fellow New Jersey resident and truly outstanding citizen, Thomas B. Ahart of Philipsburg, who is completing his highly successful term as President of the nation's largest insurance association--the Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America (IIABA)--later this month in New Orleans. Tom is president of Ahart, Frinzi & Smith, a Philipsburg, N.J.-based independent insurance agency. Tom's career as an independent insurance agent has been marked with outstanding contribution and relentless dedication to his clients, community, IIABA, the Independent Insurance Agents of New Jersey (IIANJ), and his independent agent colleagues across the country. He began his volunteer service with IIANJ where he served as president and chairman of the board. He also represented New Jersey as its representative to IIABA's National Board of State Directors. He was chairman of IIABA's Education Committee for four years before being elected to the Association's executive leadership panel. Outside IIABA, Tom has served as a member of the board of the New Jersey Joint Underwriting Authority and was president of the Eastern Agents Association. He has served as an advisor to the American Institute for Chartered Property Casualty Underwriters and the Insurance Institute of America, and was just appointed to their board. Tom was honored with several state and local awards. They include the 1982 New Jersey Young Agent of the Year, the 1986 and 1987 New Jersey Executive Committee Chairman of the Year Awards, the 1993 New Jersey Insurance Person of the Year Award, and the 1994 IIA of Hunterdon/ Warren County Agent of the Year Award. Tom also has distinguished himself as an active and concerned member of his community. He was elected to serve on his local school board, served as a trustee at his church, and as a little league coach for 25 years, and he's coached boy's wrestling, boy's baseball, girl's basketball and girl's softball. I laud Tom for his tireless leadership of the Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America and the many accomplishments benefiting all independent insurance agents and brokers realized during his tenure as President. I know that even though Tom will step aside as IIABA leader soon, he will remain involved with the Association because he is a concerned leader and wants to continue helping his colleagues build for a strong and secure future. Congratulations on a job well done, Tom!

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Law Enforcement Partnership to Combat Terrorism Act. This legislation seeks to designate 25 percent of available COPS grant funding for the hiring and training of intelligence officers and analysts by state and local police departments, in an effort to further promote our nations anti- terrorism efforts. Much has changed since September 11, 2001. With a heightened awareness of the devastating effects of terrorism, our nation is undergoing change on every level, in order to ensure that National and Homeland Security are at the forefront of our agenda. As the Chairman of the House Armed Services Special Oversight Panel on Terrorism, I have played an active role in many of these initiatives. While many important steps have already been taken in fighting the war of terrorism, I believe that more can be done to ensure a concentrated, connected, nation-wide effort. To this end, I feel that it is imperative to enhance the anti- terrorism efforts of our police departments, as opposed to simply providing funding for the traditional community policing efforts. Designating 25 percent of available COPS funding to increase the number of law enforcement officers involved in activities that are focused on intelligence efforts is an important step in this direction. The Law Enforcement Partnership to Combat Terrorism Act states that specialized training will be provided for one intelligence officer and one analyst officer per grant recipient. Such training will include enhancing the officers' observation, information gathering, foreign language, and analytic skills necessary to spot terrorist threats in their communities. These officers, in turn, will be able to share their skills with the other members of their police force. In addition, my legislation directs the Attorney General to ensure that all intelligence and analyst officers have top secret security clearances. Such security clearances will allow these State and local law enforcement officers to share information with Federal officials, facilitating a concentrated effort. By providing the necessary funding, we can further promote coordination among Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers to ensure an interconnected, concentrated effort in our war on terrorism. I am confident that these efforts will be successful in allowing state and local law enforcement officers to play a vital role in the enhancement of our Homeland Security.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3389, the National Sea Grant College Program Act Amendments of 2002; and, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say at this time that the hard work of the chairman, the gentleman from Maryland, should be noted here. To bring this bill as expeditiously as he did to the floor, I am sure, took a great deal of effort. My hat is also off to the ranking member, who works in a great bipartisan partnership with my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest). Mr. Chairman, this bill reauthorizes the National Sea Grant College Program for 5 years, encouraging more cooperation between the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, and the sea grant researchers and outreach personnel. It also incorporates the Coastal Ocean Research Program into the National Sea Grant Program and provides funding for research on zebra muscles, harmful algal bloom, and oyster diseases and their possible human health effects. The National Sea Grant Program was created in 1966 to improve the conservation and management of marine resources. Currently, there are 30 sea grant programs that represent a network of researchers, educators, and marine advisory agents at over 300 academic institutions. The program provides effective assistance to these schools for research, education, and advisory services. Under this act, marine advisory staff educates the general public about marine conservation efforts as well as provides technical research findings to user groups. The program has been highly successful during the more than 40 years since its inception. It has enabled the education community to conduct important research on a variety of important marine conservation issues and then share their findings with the public in order to educate our people on the importance of ensuring we can work together to protect these important and often fragile ecosystems in our Nation's oceans and waterways. Mr. Chairman, I commend all those who have participated in this program and committed themselves to the preservation of these ecosystems and habitats. I applaud Chairman Gilchrest in reauthorizing this important piece of conservation legislation and look forward to its passage out of this House.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, the process that we are involved in here, I think, is most regrettable; and the message being sent is a terrible message. We are involved in a conflict that I think is every bit as serious as any conflict that this country has ever been involved in, particularly when you consider the issues involved and the potential use of weapons of mass destruction in this war. As I listen to speaker after speaker from the other side get up and proclaim their support for this war effort that is under way, I am reminded of a debate technique. It involves the word but. I am all for supporting this war, but. And I think that is a very regrettable message that this body is sending, hearing those speeches over and over and over again. In the war on terrorism, the most important thing we can do is to stay together and stay strong. I recently was paid a visit by an Israeli general who recently retired. His name was Effi Eitam. General Eitam was the general who commanded the Israeli forces in southern Lebanon for the last several years that they were engaged in the southern part of that country. And he told me that on the day that the political leadership in Israel decided to withdraw from southern Lebanon, he called the Prime Minister and he said, Sir, with all due respect, I resign. He said, I did not retire, I resigned. I resigned because the worst thing you can do in the war against terrorism is to show indecision and weakness. This debate is about indecision and weakness, and it is the wrong message to send. We have U.S. troops in the field as well, and the U.S. troops deserve to know that the political leadership on both sides of the aisle stand squarely behind them. Now, I am in my 18th year in this House; and until 1994, needless to say, I was in the minority. I heard my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), talk about the day the Democrat Speaker declared two days in one so we could get a package through. It happened year after year after year when the Democrat Party was in the majority. The U.S. troops that we have deployed in various parts of the world deserve my commitment, and they deserve my colleagues' commitment. And I think the debate where we stand up and say I support the troops and I support all of these things that are in this bill, I support $7.2 billion for ongoing military operational costs, I support $4.3 billion for personnel costs, I support $500 million for high-priority munitions, I support $1.6 billion for intelligence and other classified activities, I support $420 million for coalition support, but. There cannot be a but in this debate. We have to stand together, or we will be in the shape that Israel was in and is in after they showed a time of weakness and withdrew their activities, their troops from the southern part of Lebanon. I also would point to the war on terrorism from another respect. When the two airplanes hit the Twin Towers, and when the third one hit the Pentagon, we got together and we showed what a determined country could do. We went to Afghanistan. We fought that war. We are still fighting that war. We were successful and have been successful because we are together. Today is a very regrettable day because we are no longer together. Now, my colleagues can say that they do not like something in this because the rule provided for A, B, or C. I was here for many years as a member of the minority. I did not like everything that was in every appropriations bill. Far from it. But today we need to be together. And I ask my colleagues as Members of the U.S. House to come together with us, to pass this bill, and let us get it behind us, go home, and truly, together, together celebrate Memorial Day and those who have served our country so well over the decades before us.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the creation of the Teenage Driver Safety Awareness Day at Shawnee High School located in Medford Township, NJ in my district. This annual day was started in memory of one of my constituents, Anthony Joseph Telesca, who died on December 5, 2000, at the young age of 16, as the sole passenger in a one-car accident. Anthony lost his life as a result of reckless driving, and this great tragedy has been a living nightmare for Anthony's family and friends who love and miss him terribly. Sadly, Anthony is not the only victim of reckless driving. There are some astounding statistics regarding teenage driving that I would like to share with my colleagues: 14 percent of all deaths due to motor vehicle accidents are teen drivers; teen driver deaths due to motor vehicle accidents occur on weekends 53 percent of the time; teen drivers killed in motor vehicle accidents had a youth passenger in automobile 45 percent of the time; more than one-third of drivers fatally injured in automobiles are as a result of speed related accidents; more than any age group, teens are likely to be involved in a single vehicle crash; and this age group makes up 7 percent of licensed drivers, but suffers 14 percent of fatalities and 20 percent of all reported accidents. As a result of Anthony's tragic death, The Anthony Telesca Memorial Foundation was created to work with local high school and law enforcement officials to increase driver safety awareness amongst teenagers. I commend Anthony's family and friends for starting this effort towards educating the public, and teens especially, about the dangers of reckless driving. Programs like this one need to take place all over our country in order to reduce the sky-rocketing number of teenage driving accidents. Educating teenagers to drive safe is our only hope to prevent tragic and senseless accidents from happening.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Janet C. Wolf, who retires on June 1, 2002 after serving as Project Director of the National Park Service's New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail Route since its inception in 1988. A new idea for the National Park Service, instead of using traditional ownership, the Trail supports resource protection and awareness by linking destinations owned and managed by others through a series of interpretive theme trails: Maritime History, Coastal Habitats, Wildlife Migration, Historic Settlements, and Relaxation and Inspiration. Ms. Wolf shepherded this historic project from concept to reality. New Jersey's Coastal Heritage Trail includes portions of eight counties and six congressional districts. Almost 70 destinations, welcome centers and local information centers have been designated to date, with two additional themes under development. Janet's experience, determination and creativity enabled the partnerships to prosper. She also worked on developments for the Pinelands National Reserve and two Wild and Scenic Rivers in southern New Jersey. After 34 years of service with the National Park Service, half of which has been devoted to the New Jersey Coastal Heritage Trail, Janet retires with the gratitude of the community for her commitment to the implementation of one of our state's most treasured resources, our Coastal Heritage Trail.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4546, the Bob Stump Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. Last week the Committee on Armed Services, as has been said here a couple of times previously, voted on a great bipartisan vote, almost unanimously, to continue the committee's tradition of bipartisanship in addressing the defense needs of this Nation. As we should expect, this bill contains several initiatives that will aid the Armed Services in their ongoing war against terrorism on behalf of the American people and, indeed, on behalf of the citizens of the world. I have the honor of chairing two bodies involved in this effort, the Special Oversight Panel on Terrorism and the Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities. The Special Oversight Panel on Terrorism has been extremely active in educating Members of the clandestine ways of terrorists and seeking innovative ways to protect American forces. The Subcommittee on Military installations and Facilities has also been extremely active in our area of responsibility in approving a multitude of important projects necessary for improved force protection of military bases. This bill does much more than enforce protection, however, and I want to be sure that Members know that this need was carefully addressed by approving only projects that were requested by the Department of Defense and by making sure that these monies will be spent well. I want to also thank Tom Hawley, our staffer, for all of the work that he did in making sure that necessary measures were put in place in a very efficient way. Also, always I work closely with my counterpart and good friend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) of the Subcommittee on Military Construction of the Committee on Appropriations to develop the MILCON program for 2003. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and our ranking members the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) have worked closely with all interested parties to build a program that supports the Department of Defense on addressing major facilities and quality of life shortfalls. Mr. Chairman, let me say in closing that this chart I have here to my left represents, I believe, the crux of what we did on this year's military installation facilities authorization bill. H.R. 4546 includes $10 billion for military construction and family housing accounts, including $2 billion for quality of life enhancement. This is extremely important, as all the members of the Committee on Armed Services are aware, because in an all-volunteer Army if we cannot attract good sailors, soldiers, Marines and airmen then our military capabilities will suffer. To that extent, we have included monies to enhance quality of life and to provide the necessary facilities in this regard. So, Mr. Chairman, I ask everyone to support this bill today. I hope it will be another great bipartisan vote at the conclusion of the debate, which will occur sometime around 8 o'clock, and let me again thank my friend the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) for his wonderful work as chairman of this committee.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from the State capital area of Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts).

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

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

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. The gentleman is correct that there is or was insufficient funding available to provide for all of the military construction and family housing improvements that are needed across our military. I might add that we have tried to increase the amount of money available for this purpose and, in fact, we were able to add some money to the request that we received from the Department of Defense. I wish that we could have done more, and I particularly wish we could have taken care of all family housing needs, as quality-of-life improvements are so important and necessary in today's volunteer service. I agree that family housing at Carlisle Barracks is among those housing projects that must be replaced, and I assure the gentleman that any request by the Army for new family housing at Carlisle will receive careful consideration by my subcommittee in the next year. Family housing is an important priority and has always received the subcommittee's full support. I thank the gentleman for bringing this important matter to our attention, and I look forward to working with him on it in the next Congress.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Nancy Bailey, who retires on Saturday, June 1, 2002, after 27 years of distinguished service in our nation's correctional system. Her rise through the ranks from her beginnings as a Correctional Officer in 1974 through various administrative positions within the Bureau of Prisons to her role as Warden of both Federal Correctional Institutions Safford, Arizona, and Fort Dix, New Jersey, is indicative of her commitment to the correctional system and the management of those in her care. A Public Information Officer, Bureau of Prisons Auditor, Public Speaking Instructor and member of the Business and Professional Women's Club, Warden Bailey's involvement in the community plays an important role in her life. In her free time, she enjoys antiquing, gardening, reading and volunteering in the community. Nancy and her husband, Jacob, plan to relocate to Glocester, Rhode Island, where she will teach Criminal Justice at a local college, sharing her decades of experience in the field with those just beginning a lifetime of service in the field of law and justice. I congratulate her on her many years of commitment to public safety, and wish her a retirement filled with health, happiness and dreams come true.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, and I rise in support of House Resolution 392 which expresses our solidarity with Israel in their struggle to fight terrorism and provide security for the people of Israel. Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian leadership have simply failed to adhere to their commitments in Oslo which would require strict adherence to a peaceful resolution to the conflicts and renounce the use of terrorism and other acts of violence. In fact, the violence has escalated, as we all know, culminating in the recent killing of 46 Israelis during the week of Passover with suicide bombings where more than 100 additional were wounded. Yasser Arafat has demonstrated that he is not a viable peace partner, and I am glad to see that President Bush is now dealing with others. The Palestinian Authority has failed to fulfill its commitment to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure in Palestinian areas. Due to Arafat's unwillingness or inability to act Israel's military action is understandable. Israel has an inherent right to defend herself against armed attack and to utilize preemptive measures to prevent terrorist attacks on civilian populations, as we have done ourselves in our own war against terrorism. H.R. 392 demands that the Palestinian Authority finally fulfill its commitment to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure. It also calls on Arab States to declare their opposition to all forms of terrorism, including suicide bombings. Israel has already begun to withdraw troops from the Palestinian areas and has released Arafat from confinement. In response, all nations in the regions must denounce terrorism and work to end the violence to stabilize the region if we are to realize a lasting peace in the Middle East. I am calling on my fellow colleagues to support H.R. 392 to send a clear message to Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority. The United States demands that Arafat call for an end to violence and assume responsibility over the actions of PLO members and prevent their future acts of terrorism.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Shamong Township, Burlington County, New Jersey as it celebrates its 150th Anniversary of Incorporation. Shamong is an Indian name meaning ``place of the horn,'' so named for the abundance of deer that supplied both food and clothing for the Native Americans living or visiting there for centuries. Named Brotherton in 1758 when 3,285 acres were set aside for an Indian reservation, all remaining Indians south of the Raritan River were invited to reside there. Native Americans were encouraged to work in the mills then found in the area, thus bringing the areas most popular name, Indian Mills. The reservation was returned to the government in 1801 when the majority of the Indians moved to New York State and joined with the Oneidas. Farming has long been the most prevalent of Shamong's enterprises, and has long provided a livelihood for its residents. As a political entity, Shamong Township was formed in February, 1852 from parts of Medford, Southampton and Washington Townships. It was larger then, but soon gave ground to Woodland Township in 1866, and Tabernacle Township in 1901. Some of its former size was regained in 1902 when portions of Atlantic and Camden counties were annexed. Shamong Township lies near the geographic center of the megalopolis extending from Boston to Richmond. In the heart of the Pinelands, a U.S. Biosphere Reserve, Shamong is home to the history and lore of the Pines. The woodlands are largely a part of the Wharton Tract and are state-owned. Its farms are still productive. New residential areas are planned, while industry and business seek their place in the community as well. I congratulate Shamong Township and its residents for one and one- half centuries of the embodiment of rural life, and join their celebration of their history.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to add to the many phrases of praise already accorded our departing New Jersey State National Guard Adjutant General, Major Paul J. Glazar. General Glazar departs this post after eight years of superb service. He has set the mark high for all others who follow in his footsteps. General Glazar assumed the duties as The State Adjutant General for the New Jersey Army National Guard on February 24, 1994. As the Adjutant General he was responsible for the expansion of the Guard's command and control high technology training centers. His foresight in standing up these training centers for the education of staffs enabled the New Jersey National Guard to act as the focal point for command and control services on September 11, 2001. Fort Dix's ability to act in this key function can be traced back to outstanding leadership of General Glazar. Additionally, General Glazar demonstrated outstanding leadership in modernizing and expanding important Veteran projects for the state to include the Brigadier General William C. Doyle Veterans Cemetery and the New Jersey Veterans Memorial Home in Menlo Park. Thankfully, we will not be losing General Glazar's leadership, since he will remain inside the New Jersey National Guard structure. It is with tremendous pride and honor that I pay tribute to a great General who served New Jersey so honorably.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me first begin by commending the members of the Committee on the Budget for the very commendable job they did in bringing forward this budget proposal, and particularly the hard work of the chairman, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), who has worked untiringly throughout the last 6 months, under difficult circumstances, I might add, and often without thanks, for bringing this budget proposal to us. It has been a great job, and I am pleased to stand here and say that I fully support the bill. Let me also say that, aside from being the chairman of the Committee on Joint Economics, I am also one of the senior members of the Committee on Armed Services, and it is true that the members of the Committee on Armed Services had some reservations about the budget because of the way certain monies were being set aside. I must say that I have a different read of the current situation than the gentleman who just spoke, however. Throughout the last 48 hours or so, the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Stump) has led us in the direction of defining what will ultimately happen with that seemingly elusive $10 billion, and I am perfectly satisfied, after having sat in the Oval Office with the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Stump) and most of the senior members of the Republican side of the Committee on Armed Services, to talk with President Bush this morning about what his intentions are, and his intentions are to recommend that those monies be spent this year on measures yet to be defined. I think it is important to point out that the Committee on Armed Services, upon which I and the just-completed speaker serve, will help define those needs. That is our job. I am particularly thankful to the President for taking time to explain his position to us this morning, and I am perfectly well satisfied that those monies can be well spent and invested in our national security through this mechanism. So let me turn now to my real reason for being here today, and that is to try to put into the context what is going on currently with the economy and how this budget proposal fits into that scenario. The budget policies under debate today should be considered, I believe, in the context of the current economic situation and the recent economic history. In that spirit, I would like to say a few words about where the economy has been and where it is going. My remarks will center on five or six areas. First, where we have been; second, why we got in trouble; third, how the stage was set for recovery; fourth, how the events of September 11 affected our economy in the context of setting the stage for recovery; fifth, where I believe we are now; and, finally, what policies do we need to address to provide for healthy economic growth in the future, and all that in the context of this budget. Where we have been. In the eighties and nineties we had a phenomenon that many people did not recognize early on in the eighties. We had almost two complete decades of continuous economic growth. Beginning in 1984, the economy started to grow, and it grew right on through 2000, the first half of 2000, and did not begin to slow until the latter half of 2000. What I said is almost precisely true. There was a very short and mild recession in the second half of 1990 and the first half of 1991. It was 8 months long. But aside from that very short period of interruption in economic growth, that is, and that is very unusual, the longest period of economic growth in our history, the most robust period of economic growth in our history, and we ought to recognize it as being so. In the middle of 2000 we began to experience a significant slowdown in economic growth. More specifically, the growth of real Gross Domestic Product, consumption, investment, manufacturing activity and employment all began to slow down substantially around mid-2000. There were several reasons to explain this sharp slowdown. First, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates six times, 175 basis points in total. That put a drag on the economy, and it was intended to slow the economy, because there were certain members of the Federal Reserve Board who believed that the economy was going to overheat, and so a conscious effort was made to increase interest rates. Second, substantial energy costs, particularly oil prices, increased from early 1999 through 2000, and that additionally created a drag on the economy. Third, higher interest rates and higher energy prices worked together to produce enough drag on the economy that it weakened the somewhat overvalued stock market, and in turn the downturn in the stock market had a broad effect on the economy. Finally, fourth, the tax burden or fiscal drag which was present in 1999 and 2000 also had its weakening effect on the economy. These factors were all influencing the economy by mid-2000, thus the seeds for the slowdown were sown prior to mid-2000. Because of long lags, these factors continued to influence the economy for quite a long time. I would also like to talk for a minute about how the stage then in 2001 was set for recovery. As the economy remained sluggish or continued to weaken, however, these casual factors moderated or unwound themselves during much of 2001. For example, the Federal Reserve began to lower interest rates, and, over the next period of time, lowered short-term interest rates by 475 basis points, a very significant thing in terms of our monetary policy. Second, energy prices retreated. Happily, as people watched the pump price, when they went to the gas station prices dropped dramatically, having a positive effect on the economy or setting the stage for a recovery. Then stock prices stopped falling and the stock market stabilized, again unwinding one of the factors that produced a drag on the economy the year before. Finally, the Bush tax cut plan was passed and signed into law in June, setting the stage for a rejuvenation of consumer and business rebound. As a consequence, by late summer of 2001, many economists were expecting a near-term rebound in activity, which began to occur. The economic impact, however, of the terrorist attacks of September 11 changed this economic outlook in a number of ways. This is very important. We were set to begin a recovery by the end of the summer of 2001, and had it not been, I believe, for the terrorist attacks, that recovery would have proceeded forward. In the short term, after the attacks, the attacks increased apprehension in the financial markets and adversely affected consumption and investment as confidence waned. So, over the long term, as people looked at the decision process of what they were going to do over the long term, uncertainty created a pessimistic attitude on the part of business people and others which affected our economy. Consumption was down, investment was down, and that acted as a new drag on the economy. Second, the attacks had a direct adverse impact on certain industries, most notably the airlines, the travel industry, insurance, hotels, and, of course, activities that are related to those businesses. Also in the long term, increased security costs, it became clear, would raise the cost of running a business and adversely affect productivity and earnings. If you believe, as I do, that an economy has just so much value, and if, as was true during the eighties and nineties, we were making investments to increase productivity which in turn helped to build our economy, and if we now have to divert some of those investment dollars for security purposes, obviously those purposes, while necessary, do not create the productivity that investment in technology does. So, this was a factor which we believe was very important. Similarly, spending on unnecessary military and security buildup to some extent crowds out more productive private investment. Consequently, the terrorist attacks may adversely impact productivity growth and the economy's long-term potential for growth. In sum, as a consequence of the terrorist attack the economy was tipped into recession, as certified by the National Bureau of Economic Research, which now the recession is said to have begun in March. Where are we now? Currently the preponderance of evidence suggests that the economy is finally coming out of the recession. If so, this recession will be one of the mildest on record. There are reasons for the rebound, which include the Federal Reserve's lower interest rates policies, lower energy prices and tax cuts which were put in place. Recently, for example, most data are being reported as stronger than expected. For example, real GDP for the fourth quarter was up 1.4 percent, due to particularly strong consumption. Second, leading indicators are up for the fourth month in a row, another positive sign. Third, monthly consumption in retail, in auto sales and personal income are improving and holding up extremely well. Fifth, housing continues to hold up very well. Sixth, payroll employment gains were registered in February for the first time since last summer. That is right, we gained 66,000 jobs in payroll gains in the month of February. Finally, there are even some signs of improvement in manufacturing activity, which has been the hardest hit sector. The purchasing managers survey is above 50 and durable goods orders are up, all positive signs. Further, prices remain behaved and inflation is currently not a problem. The most likely outcome for the economy is to continue to rebound for at least several more quarters, due in part to inventory rebuilding and continued low interest rates. Let me move now to the future and why this budget and the policies surrounding it are important. We should have learned some things from the last 20 years in the economic growth that we saw, and we should have learned some things based on what went wrong in 1999 and the first half of 2000. Policies. The policies that we need to keep the economy moving are important, particularly important now, as we consider this budget. Given these developments, the question is, what types of economic policies are appropriate to keep the economy moving forward at a healthy pace without inflation? I believe there are several policies that foster the favorable set of circumstances that we need to create. First of all, we need to recognize that not all of this has to do with the Congress of the United States; not directly, anyway. The Federal Reserve, as I noted earlier, had a lot to do with both the period of economic growth that we had and something to do with the recession that began or the slowdown that began in 2000. The Federal Reserve policy of gradually pursuing price stability can foster growth in a number of ways. Such policy lowers interest rates, reduces unnecessary uncertainty in the economy, enables the price system to work better, and acts like a tax cut because it provides for less cost in doing business. The second factor that I would point out is that, just as was pointed out by John Kennedy in 1963 and just as was pointed out by Ronald Reagan in 1980, low marginal tax rates promote incentives to work, save, and invest, and to innovate. Entrepreneurial activity is fostered, and individuals are encouraged to enter market activity. All this promotes growth without inflation. So the policies that we saw put in place early in the Bush administration are extremely important, and that is why we have advocated for additional stimulus packages by using tax cuts. Third, and of particular interest in the context of this budget, government spending constraint had a lot to do with where we were during particularly the last decade. Keeping government spending shrinking as a share of GDP enables more economic resources to be allotted and utilized more efficiently and with productivity in the private sector, so tax policy remains an extremely important factor, as well as restraint in government spending. Fourth, investment in technological innovations, which I alluded to a few minutes ago, is also extremely important. I will not go into a long explanation of this, but there is something that economists used to refer to which is called the Phillips curve, which says that essentially we cannot have long-term economic growth without inflation. That is because when the economy reaches full employment, because there is a continued demand for labor and a very limited supply, it produces upward wage pressures. Those upward wage pressures are inflationary. We proved that not to be true in the 1980s and 1990s. It is not true, it did not happen, and the reason we believe it did not happen is because we were successful, as entrepreneurs and as members of society, with introducing new forms of technology that helped productivity, which relieved the pressure on labor costs. So investment in technology and promoting investment in these things, and innovation, can add productive capacity, thereby allowing for sustained economic expansion without inflation. Finally, foreign markets play a continuing important role in our understanding of how to promote growth in our economy. Reducing tariff barriers and promoting open markets increases the size of the international sector, and all this helps with economic growth while fostering lower prices. Increased international integration enables the economy to take advantage of larger markets and become more specialized and more efficient, productive, and competitive. This allows the economy to produce more goods with the same or less input, and to grow faster without inflation; the remarkable strategies that were used by the government, by the private sector, and by the Fed during the eighties and nineties. Finally, the economic data released in recent weeks suggests the recession appears to be over and the recovery is now under way. In terms of budgetary policy, this means that we can expect the same kinds of things to happen in the future growth period that happened during the last growth period in terms of Federal revenue. The economic outlook looks positive, and with sound policies in place, longer term prospects for an extended, sustained expansion look promising. The budget resolution sustains the Bush tax cuts and provides for restraint in Federal domestic spending. Policies that will enhance the prospect for economic growth are present in this budget. I hope in the future we can also agree to make the tax incentives enacted in 2001 permanent, and maximize their positive effect on economic growth. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) be permitted to control the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 368) commending the great work that the Pentagon Renovation Program and its contractors have completed thus far, in reconstructing the portion of the Pentagon that was destroyed by the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001.