Jim Saxton

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire, it is my understanding that we are to have votes at this time or shortly, and a request has been made at this time to go ahead and take those votes. My intention at this time would be to yield back my time; however, if the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) has more speakers and wants to wait until after the votes, which I understand will end about 7 p.m., then perhaps we can continue the debate during the Humphrey-Hawkins part of the debate after 7 p.m.

Mr. SAXTON. That is fine. Mr. Chairman, I believe it would be expeditious on my part at this point to yield the balance of the Joint Economic Committee's time back to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), chairman of the Committee on the Budget, which I do.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by offering my congratulations to the Committee on the Budget, led by the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle), for the extremely hard work and efficient job they have done in bringing this budget to the floor which will be voted on here in the next day or so. We appreciate very much the work that has been done and the budget that has emerged, which I rise to strongly support. Mr. Chairman, as the chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, it is customary for us to have an hour at this time or at some point in the budget debate to discuss the effects, or the potential effects, as we see them, of the pending budget to be voted on on the economic performance of our country; and in fact, if we might be so presumptuous, since our economy has something to do with the world economy, on the effect that the budget and the spending program that it lays out would have on the economic performance of this country and the world during the next fiscal year. I think in order to put this in the proper perspective, from the perspective of a citizen of this country, it is very important to recognize where we have been and how we got there economically over the past number of years, and then to talk a little bit about where the economy appears to be going. I think it is important to point out, therefore, that we have done quite well over the last two decades. As a matter of fact, we are in the 10th year of an economic expansion, and yes, the economy is still expanding, albeit a bit slower than it was. I think it is also important to point out that the 10-year growth period that we are currently in was preceded by an economic expansion that lasted 8 years. So there are some good things at play in the United States economy, producing first an 8-year period of growth, followed by a very short 8-month recession, and a very shallow one, I might point out, during the last half of 1990 and the first quarter of 1991, and then we began to grow once again, and we have grown through today. We believe there are some reasons that happened. First, perhaps, is that in the early 1980s and in the mid-1980s, a stage was set in our country by the reduction of some tax rates which were brought about during the Reagan administration. Because we were able to build on that platform, if you will, of a new tax process, a new system, in effect, of at least lower rates, we were able to see the progress begin during the 1980s of building this long-term economic growth period that we have seen. Secondly, it is important to point out that not everything that affects the economy happens as a result of activities in this room or in the other body. As a matter of fact, the Congress had very little to do with the activities of the Fed, the Federal Reserve, during the last 12 years or so. Headed up by our friend, Dr. Greenspan, the Fed took upon itself a new, or at least a partially new, direction. In a book that I recently read about Dr. Greenspan, the introduction to the book called him ``an anti-inflation hawk.'' That is precisely what has characterized the last 12 years of the activities of the Fed: The Fed has targeted inflation. As a result of the targeting of inflation, they have brought inflation down so that interest rates, the long-term interest rates, are also relatively low. So between lower taxes than we have had historically, lower tax rates than we have had historically since World War II, and the lowest rate of inflation over a sustained period of time in that same period, we have seen very significant economic growth. There are other factors, but suffice it to say that our taxing system and our inflationary rates have been quite low. However, all good things tend to come to an end, although this one has not come to an end quite yet, and we hope it will not. We do know that the economic program has begun to change, and there have been signs of a slowdown. Although this slowdown was documented last December in a JEC study entitled ``Economic Performance and Outlook,'' there seems to be a little confusion in some quarters about when the slowdown actually started. A review of the facts demonstrates that the economic slowdown has been under way at least since the middle of last year. Recent economic developments are important, and it is important to understand that. Because policymakers cannot afford to be unaware of what has actually been happening in the economy, I would like to present some facts about where we have been. The best single indicator of the slowdown is the decline in the rate of economic growth in the second half of the last year. That would be, of course, 2000. This decline in GDP growth was already evident in numbers released by the Clinton Commerce Department last year, and confirmed in subsequent releases. Real economic growth, as a matter of fact, during the second quarter of 2000, was at 5.6 percent. This chart that I have here next to me shows here in the second quarter of 2000 we had a very significant increase to 5.6 percent from 4.8 percent during the first quarter. So things were really moving along quite well. But then as the year progressed and we got into the third quarter, we can see here on the chart that the rate of growth actually dropped from 5.6 percent, which occurred in the second quarter, to 2.2 percent GDP growth in the third quarter, and in the fourth quarter it fell significantly again to 1.1 percent. So we are looking at a rate of growth today that is much lower than the rates that we saw early in 2000. As a matter of fact, we believe that this demonstrates quite conclusively that the slowdown actually began during the third quarter of 2000. Some components of the economic slowdown, some additional components, are also important. For example, a very large portion of the private economy is accounted for by personal consumption and investment; that is, personal investment. The real personal consumption spending growth, as a matter of fact, decreased during that same period of time. It decreased, as a matter of fact, from over 7 percent growth in the first quarter of 2000 to less than 3 percent in the fourth quarter, again demonstrated by the chart here to my left. Real private fixed investment growth also fell, as demonstrated on the next chart, from 16 percent in the first quarter of 2000 to about zero, to less than zero, a negative number, by the fourth quarter of 2000. So here again we see that during the last half of last year, things began to happen that some folks have called a financial meltdown. Some folks, it has caused some folks to sell all their equities, as a friend of mine told me he did yesterday. So these trends, both in the factors that I have outlined here as well as in the stock market, which many Americans are watching very closely these days, have all shown significant declines, which again began during the second half of 2000. The economy is therefore in a serious slowdown that was well under way in the middle of 2000. As is evident, there is a great deal of evidence that an economic slowdown has been under way for more than 6 months, and that it has nothing to do with public officials acknowledging what is shown in official statistics, most of which had already been released by the previous administration; that is, of course, the Clinton administration. While construction and some service-producing industries have been holding up fairly well, overall measures of the economy show a rapid and deep slowdown. So I think that perhaps the point that I want to make to begin this hour on the Joint Economic Committee analysis of this budget is that there has been a slowdown under way for quite some time. We have seen, during the last two decades, almost 18 years of continuous economic growth, again, separated only by a short and mild 8-month recession in the second half of 1990 and the first quarter of 1991. Therefore, we should be able to learn from what we have done correctly in the past, and also learn from what perhaps we have done incorrectly during that same period of time. Mr. Chairman, a review of the facts is enough to convince any reasonable person that a sharp economic slowdown has been under way, and this raises the obvious question of what the appropriate policy response should be. As I have pointed out before, both monetary policy and fiscal policy, that is, tax and spending policy, have been very tight as the slowdown has unfolded. Steps have been made by the Federal Reserve to relax its overly tight monetary policy, though more is needed, and then adjustment of tax and spending policy is also warranted. The current economic system is generating large and growing surpluses in revenue to the Federal Government, and the tax system is creating a fiscal drag at the same time on the economy. Federal revenues as a share of GDP are at their highest since World War II. Let me repeat that: Federal revenues as a share of GDP are at their highest since World War II. I believe that, translated into slightly different language, that means that the American people are paying more in tax revenues as a share of GDP than at any time since World War II, and that, Mr. Chairman, at least in the view of the chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, creates a drag on the economy. The high level of Federal taxes is a hindrance to economic growth that can and should be alleviated, and I applaud the Bush administration for coming forth with this proposal for a $1.6 billion tax cut. For all the talk about the size of the tax relief proposal, it amounts to about 6.6 cents on every dollar projected over the 10-year period. In other words, it is not a large tax decrease when compared with the total size of the revenues which will be coming in during that period of time. The President has proposed and this budget contains, as we all know, a $1.6 trillion tax relief package. During the same period of time that this tax relief package will play out, our total revenues will be $26.6 trillion, so that amounts to about 6 cents on the dollar over that period of time, and I believe very much warranted. Over the long term, reductions in tax rates and incentives for personal savings and investment will boost the after-tax reward for these activities, increasing the flow of resources into production. This will improve economic growth, at least moderately in the short to intermediate run, and the compounding effects of this improvement over time will significantly increase economic and income growth over the long run. Speedy delivery of the tax relief could also work to contain the current slowdown and facilitate a stronger renewal of economic growth. The bottom line is that the Federal Government has a large tax surplus that is exacting a disproportionate additional cost on the already struggling taxpayers. The Federal Government does not need this extra revenue, and it should be returned to the taxpayers where it originated in the first place. A serious economic slowdown requires a reduction in fiscal drag caused by this excessive taxation. The tax system is imposing excessive additional costs on the economy, and now is the right time to provide tax relief and reduce this burden on hard-pressed taxpayers. We cannot make the economy turn on a dime, but we can alleviate the hardship caused by the slowdown and help build a foundation for stronger recovery. There are those who say that the surplus should not be used for tax relief, and I believe that that is wrong. Another important reason to provide tax relief is that the surplus will be spent, and I know that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations is here, and I know what a great job he has done over the last period of time in holding down helping to hold down spending. But the fact of the matter is that we know that if that surplus remains, that that is too much of a temptation for the forces of this town to resist and, therefore, provides another compelling reason for this tax reduction to go in place. The basic problem was outlined by the public choice school of economics some years ago. When they pointed out that surpluses just always get spent. The key problem is that there is an imbalance in our political system that leads to a bias towards increased Federal spending whenever there is a surplus. The nature of the imbalance is this: The benefits of increased government spending are highly concentrated among the clients of various special interests groups that operate in our country and in this town while the costs of increased government spending are diffused among all the taxpayers. In other words, the taxpayers are only indirectly represented by those of us in this room, while those who favor increased spending are represented by paid lobbyists throughout this town. In other words, in the legislative process, the more intense an organized representation of special interest groups in favor of more spending tends to overwhelm the general interests of taxpayers scattered throughout the country. The larger the surplus, my friends, the more pressure there will be to spend it. Why should not we send some of the taxpayers hard-earned money back to them, and as we have pointed out on this chart, it is only 6 cents on the dollar over the period of time. One of the founders of the public choice economics won the Nobel Prize for his development of this and related explanations of decision- making and unconstrained legislative bodies, that of course was Jim Buchanan who is now at George Mason University earlier at the University of Virginia. The fundamental truth of this proposition is why so many of us have supported tax limitation and similar amendments ultimately based on the public choice theory. Without such constraints, the pressures on the Federal Government to spend are so relentless and well organized that the outcome is in very little doubt, and so, we have before us a proposal to reduce the level of taxation on the American people contained in a very frugal budget. It is being spent out of the money that is left over. After our basic needs have been met, an increase in this budget of, I understand, less than 4 percent overall, and still there is room for a tax cut. I believe it is essential. When I go on the street and talk to my friends, they recognize the responsibility as a Member of the House that I have, as we all have a responsibility to help to provide Federal policy that makes our economy grow. I challenge my friends on either side of the aisle to go back home having voted against the budget, which includes the provisions that are so important in setting the stage for this tax decrease. Mr. Chairman, I challenge any of my friends to explain that in the light of the economic conditions that we appear to be headed for. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire, did the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) yield back all of his time?

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

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, 4 years ago, I introduced the Asian Elephant Conservation Act. I took that action because I was startled to learn that there were less than 40,000 Asian elephants living in the wild. Furthermore, nearly 50 percent of those elephants living in various national parks in India, while the remaining animals were scattered in fragmented populations throughout 12 other countries in South and Southeast Asia. The primary reason for this serious decline in population was the lose of essential habitat. It is no secret that elephants and man are in direct competition for the same resources. In most cases, it was the elephants who lost in those confrontations. In addition, Asian elephants are poached for their bones, hide, meat, and teeth; they are still captured for domestication; and conflicts between elephants and people are escalating at an alarming rate. Furthermore, it was clear that millions of people were not aware of the plight of Asian elephants and that range countries lack the financial resources to help conserve this flagship species. Without an international effort, the future of the Asian elephant was in serious jeopardy. In response to this problem, I, along with a number of other Members, proposed the establishment of an Asian elephant conservation fund. This concept was modeled after the highly successful African elephant conservation fund, and the fundamental goal of my legislation was to obtain a small amount of Federal assistance for on-the-ground conservation projects. In testimony before my subcommittee, eight witnesses indicated strong support for my bill and their belief that it would be an effective way to assist Asian elephants. One of those witnesses, Dr. Terry Maple, the president of the American Zoo and Aquarium Association, stated that, This bill will provide competitive financing where it is needed most--in the wild to support protection, conservation, and management of threatened Asian elephants. In addition, noted wildlife biologist, Doug Chadwick advised the subcommittee that To pass an Asian Elephant Conservation Act would be one of the most farsighted and yet practical things we could do the benefit of Americans, people throughout Asia, and the world we share. Fortunately, this important legislation was overwhelmingly approved by both bodies, and it was signed into law on November 19, 1997. Under the terms of P.L. 105-95, the Congress could appropriate up to $25 million to the Asian elephant conservation funds until September 30, 2002. In fact, some $1.9 million in Federal funds has been allocated and those moneys have been matched by an additional $1.1 million in private donations. Those funds have been used to underwrite 27 conservation grants in 9 different range countries. The type of prospects funded have included: develop an elephant strategy in Sri Lanka; identification of a suitable managed elephant range in Malaysia; molecular tools for the local population assessment of Asian elephants; school education to support Asian elephant conversation in India and trace the mobility patterns, population dynamics, and feeding patterns of Sri Lankan elephants. These projects were carefully analyzed and competitively selected from a list of nearly 100 proposals that were submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. While the early indications is that the worldwide population of Asian elephants has stopped its precipitous decline, it is unrealistic to believe that $3 million can save this species from extinction. Nevertheless, this law sent a powerful message to the international community that we must not allow this flagship species to disappear from the wild. The United States must continue to play a leadership role in this effort. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to join with in support of the Asian Elephant Conservation Reauthorization Act of 2001 which will extend this vital conservation law for an additional 5 years.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 279) affecting the representation of the majority and minority membership of the Senate Members of the Joint Economic Committee, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 32), and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding any adjournment of the House until Monday, February 26, 2001, the Speaker, majority leader, and minority leader be authorized to accept resignations and to make appointments authorized by law or by the House.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, the terrorist attack on the U.S.S. Cole, in which 17 young American sailors lost their lives, and 39 were seriously wounded, was but the latest tragic reminder of the threat that the world's democratic nations face from the specter of terrorism. For many years, the United States has worked with our friends and allies to combat the scourge of international terrorism. This cooperation recognizes the mutual enlightened self-interest of democracies that face common threats to develop common means of responding to those threats. Few countries have suffered as much from international terrorism as India. India, a nation with deeply rooted democratic traditions, must remain vigilant against an ever-present threat of terror fomented from many of the same forces that seek to attack U.S. interests and cause harm to Americans, such as Osama Bin-Laden and the forces associated with his international terrorist network. That is why I am encouraged to see that cooperation between the United States and India on the anti-terrorism front has been strengthened and deepened. At the two U.S.-India summit meetings this year--one here in Washington the other in New Delhi--a framework for bilateral cooperation in the war against terrorism has been adopted, including establishment of a Joint Working Group on counter terrorism. We should see to it that this cooperation is strengthened and that this Joint Working Group continues to meet productively on a regular basis. In particular, I am encouraged that the U.S. and India have decided to expand the mandate of the Joint Working Group to include discussion on such issues as narco-terrorism and Afghanistan. During his visit to Washington in September, Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee raised the situation in Afghanistan, India's concerns about the nature of the Taliban government and its connection with international terrorist organizations, concerns which the United States shares. Our two nations agreed to set up a framework for talks to deal with our common concerns about Afghanistan, and I will work to encourage progress on this front. For nearly two decades, India has suffered from cross-border terrorism in Punjab, in Jammu and Kashmir and in other parts of India. Thousands of lives have been lost to the terrorists' bombs and guns. Last December, an Air India jet was hijacked by individuals subsequently identified as Pakistani nationals with possible links to ISI, an intelligence organization of the Pakistan Government. On a recent report on the CBS news magazine ``60 Minutes,'' Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni, outgoing commander of U.S. forces in South Asia told reporter Steve Kroft that he believes it is ``very possible'' that nuclear weapons in Pakistan could wind up in the hands of extremist religious leaders. These are the kinds of threats that India faces on an ongoing basis. The U.S. State Department has indicated its growing concerns about terrorism in the South Asia region. Congress must, if necessary, urge the State Department to act on designating those Pakistani-based militant groups that have so far escaped designation as Foreign Terrorist Organizations. Otherwise, those very groups will take the lack of action on our part as a signal that we are tolerating the very terrorist actions our laws are intended to interdict, thereby encouraging further terrorist action against innocent populations. Like the United States, India recognizes that terrorism represents an assault on the very notion of an open, democratic society. And like the United States, India is not about to surrender to those forces that seek to murder innocents, exact blackmail and tear the fabric of civil society. We have long worked with the other great democracies of the world to make a common stand against those forces. We must see to it that the beginnings of cooperation we have seen with India, the world's largest democracy, will move forward to protect the lives of our people and build a more secure future for both of our great nations.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by commending the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster), and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for expeditiously bringing us this bill today. I would also like to commend the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Shaw) for his dogged determination in bringing this bill to the floor. We all love the Everglades. Without the gentleman's hard work and dedication, we would not be here today addressing this subject. I think the world should know that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) had a lot to do with making this possible. It is also important to my district, Mr. Speaker, Congress recognizes the importance of preserving and protecting our beaches from further erosion. This bill does that for the beaches on Long Beach Island. New Jersey is the most densely populated State in the Nation with the coastal communities continuing to grow at a rapid pace. In addition, tourists double and sometimes triple the local population in the summer as people flock to the shore. The continued economic health of the coastal communities depend on a sustainable shoreline that will protect existing homes and businesses from continued erosion and storm damage. The narrowing and lowering of beaches and dunes along Long Beach Island has reduced the storm protection that would otherwise have been available. Major storms which occurred in March of 1984, October of 1991, January of 1992 and December of 1992 have taken their toll on our beaches. This continued storm damage has eroded the beaches completely in some areas where the water is actually washing under homes. The storms of 1992 qualified for disaster assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and many areas of the shoreline have not fully recovered even today. We have been working on this project for 8 years with the cooperation of the Corps of Engineers. It is designed to repair Long Beach Island's beaches, to protect them for the next 50 years. Therefore, I would like to urge my colleagues to vote in support of the Water Resources Development Act, WRDA, because of its vital importance in funding projects that will protect coastal communities from future storm damage throughout the country. Mr. Speaker, again, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) for the important part that he played in bringing this bill to the floor.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 590, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' Stated against:

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2903. Included in this important bill are three measures I introduced that have already been approved overwhelmingly by the House. First, the bill reauthorizes the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act for Fiscal Years 2001, 2002 and 2003. It also requires the National Marine Fisheries Service to conduct an important study to determine the age distribution of Atlantic striped bass populations and the age structure necessary to maintain adequate recruitment and sustainable opportunities for Jersey Coast fishermen along Long Beach Island in my District. The second bill reauthorizes the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act through Fiscal year 2005, which encourages and assists states in the management of important recreational and commercial fisheries along the Atlantic Coast from Maine to Florida, such as the all important striped bass, summer flounder, and bluefish. The third bill creates the John H. Prescott Marine Mammal Rescue Assistance Grant Program as well as authorizes a study on the unusual high mortality rates of eastern gray whale population along our Pacific coast. Specifically, the Prescott grant program will fill a void under Title IV of the Marine Mammal Protection Act by making a small, but critical amount of money available through a competitive grant process to help cover a portion of the costs associated with day-to-day stranding events. I believe it is very important we demonstrate our support and appreciation for the efforts of all those people along our coasts who help our government agencies assist in the rescue, recovery and rehabilitation of stranded marine mammals. I urge an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this measure also includes, and I would like to point out, the coral reef conservation provisions similar to the legislation I introduced, H.R. 3919. This bill is extremely important in this regard, as coral reefs are threatened by a variety of natural impacts and human activities, including coral disease, hurricanes, destructive fisheries practices, pollution and changing ocean conditions. Despite these threats, coral reefs support the economies of many local communities and are essential habitat for many of this Nation's recreational and commercial fisheries. This legislation establishes new Federal-State-local partnerships to work on conservation and restoration programs. It authorizes Federal matching grants to protect and restore these valuable natural resources. It also authorizes NOAA to conduct mapping, monitoring, assessment, education, conservation and management activities relating to coral reefs. Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote on this measure.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to give my thanks to the chairman for this great work. This is, in fact, a major step forward for environmental protection and estuary enhancement. So I would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the other conferees on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for their great work on this bill. The section of the bill that, of course, I authored, H.R. 1237, allows the authorized funding of $35 million annually through 2005. These Federal funds can be used for implementation, in addition to the development of comprehensive management plans in estuarine areas. Congress recognized the importance of preserving and enhancing coastal environments with the establishment of the National Estuary Program, NEP, in 1987. The NEP's purpose is to facilitate State and local governments' preparation of comprehensive management plans for threatened and impaired estuaries. In support of this effort, the EPA is authorized to make grants to States to develop CCMPs for 30 designated estuaries across the country. My own State of New Jersey has three approved sites in the NEP, one of which is Barnegat Bay, which lies mostly in my district. The bay is a watershed which drains land for approximately 550 square miles. Over 450,000 people live in the Barnegat Bay watershed and the population doubles there in the summer. Nonpoint 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 final CCMP for Barnegat Bay is complete, but without the additional funding of this program, as well as explicitly permitting NEP to use Federal funds for the implementation of the program, the Federal Government would have absolved itself of the 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, in particular the chairman, for expeditiously moving this bill.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a good friend, John Hicks, of Leisuretowne, New Jersey. John is a community leader without equal. Having risen through the ranks of firefighters in Philadelphia starting in 1947, he became Battalion Chief of Battalion 13 in 1978. A true professional, his career in public service as a firefighter is rarely equaled. On relocating to Southampton Township, New Jersey in 1979, John became involved in the transportation program, driving Leisuretowne residents to shopping centers, doctor appointments, and more. John was first elected to Southampton Council in 1981, and still serves today. He has been both dedicated and adamant with regard to the Big Hill Landfill project, and is active as liaison between the Leisuretowne military veterans and Southampton Township. John is very active, in a subdued way, accomplishing a great deal quietly, with dignity. He is truly deserving of this tribute, and I am certain he will remain committed to serving the community for many years to come.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Rabbi Richard Hammerman of Congregation B'Nai Israel, Toms River, New Jersey, who is celebrating his 25th year with the synagogue. Much of B'Nai Israel's vibrancy and outreach comes from the influence of Rabbi Hammerman, who came to B'Nai Israel in 1975. He is credited by many as the driving force which helped make the synagogue as it is today. Through the years, the congregation has enjoyed many additions and accomplishments, among them the memorial to the victims of the Holocaust, the stained glass windows depicting scenes from Israel, and the synagogue expansion in 1983. Despite difficulties during the early days, the congregation persevered, and today it is an active member of both the Jewish community and the community at large, including a thriving Talmud Torah which sends all Hebrew high school graduates to Israel, participates in community programs to provide moderate housing, and in an interfaith group to help house the homeless. Rabbi Hammerman is described as a ``real mensch,'' a person who genuinely cares about each member of the congregation. He is considered a man of the highest ethics, one who is warm and welcoming. Having grown from 225 members upon Rabbi Hammerman's arrival to its current membership of 500, his warmth and caring are cited as the strength behind the success of Congregation B'Nai Israel, and for the respect the congregation has earned from the community. May Rabbi Richard Hammerman, Rabbi of Congregation B'Nai Israel, continue to serve the community for many years to come.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I make special note of a very important person who has served the State of New Jersey, the City of Camden, and the Delaware River port community for 50 years. Mr. Joseph A. Balzano, or Joe as we call him, serves as Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer of the South Jersey Port Commission, Port of Camden. The South Jersey Port Commission hired Joe in 1951 as an equipment operator. He quickly moved into management, serving as the Port Operations Manager from 1961 to 1982, then as Deputy Director of the Commission from 1982 to 1989, and finally as Executive Director and CEO since 1989. On August 22, 2000, he began his 50th year working for the Port of Camden. My friend Joe has had a very interesting career with many highlights. One of these highlights was his integral role in helping to bring the retired Battleship USS New Jersey (BB-62) to its namesake home of New Jersey, and to its final resting place as a national museum docked in the Port of Camden. Joe was born and raised, attended school, married and raised his family in the City of Camden. He has received many honors and awards over the years--too many to list here--and is among the best senior executives in the maritime industry. The Port of Camden is thankful that Joe Balzano's knowledge, wisdom, leadership and dedication have blessed New Jersey and the Delaware River port community for five decades. Moreover, we are fortunate that his presence will continue to grace the streets of Camden for years to come. On behalf of the United States Congress and the 3rd Congressional District of New Jersey, I thank Joe Balzano for his distinguished service and dedication to the Port of Camden and to the State of New Jersey.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating Congregation B'nai Israel in Toms River, New Jersey for its 50th anniversary. Established in 1950, Congregation B'nai Israel has provided a number of important services to the Toms River community. These services are, but not limited to, study of the Torah, a nursery school, a variety of summer programs, numerous youth activities, and adult education programs. Also, important to note is the fact that the congregation has continually provided volunteer services to Caregivers, an interfaith coalition whose mission is to train volunteers to provide home care services the frail elderly, the disabled and the homebound. Such services are indispensable to the Toms River community. Since 1950, Congregation B'nai Israel has grown exponentially. Today, the congregation consists of 500 families, which makes it the largest synagogue between Monmouth County and Atlantic City. It is important to recognize the totality of Congregation B'nai Israel's contributions to the entire Toms River community. Simply put, Congregation B'nai Israel offers the needed atmosphere, environment, and dedication to promote and enrich the lives of each synagogue member. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Congregation B'nai Israel for their upcoming 50th anniversary of their founding. May your gala dinner and dance at the synagogue be joyful.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to recognize Joseph F. Cullman III, a hero of the global environmental conservation movement, a successful businessman, generous philanthropist and Honorary Director of the World Wildlife Fund. In more than 26 years of leadership at WWF, Mr. Cullman has enthusiastically and unwaveringly worked to sustain the quality and vibrancy of our natural world. An alumnus of Yale, Mr. Cullman is director emeritus and chairman emeritus of Philip Morris Companies, Inc., where he served as president, chairman of the board and chief executive officer. His service on numerous corporative boards, including IBM, Ford Motor Company, Levi Strauss and Company and Walt Disney Company, attests to his business acumen and stature. His travels around the world, particularly in Africa, instilled in him a deep commitment to protecting wildlife, their habitats and the people who live in harmony with them and led him to place conservation among his highest priorities. He untiringly has applied his considerable talents, energy and resources to the cause of saving life on Earth. As Mr. Cullman and his wife Joan Cullman are honored by World Wildlife Fund on October 3 in New York, it is fitting to reflect on the quality of his commitment and the results of his crusade for conservation. He has helped to save African elephants by working to secure and maintain a ban on the trade in elephant ivory. And he has worked with communities in Kenya and Tanzania to stop poaching of elephants, rhinos, and other large animals and to provide alternative livelihoods for local people. His concern for the plight of the world's fisheries has caused him to focus on saving species in crisis including tunas, swordfish, and his favorite Atlantic salmon. All along the way, he has persuaded dozens of friends and colleagues to join him in the cause of conservation. Joseph Cullman's example of conservation leadership sends a call to action, reminding each of us that we can and must take up the urgent cause of protecting our living planet for future generations.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating Pastor Alvin A. Jackson of Cinnaminson, New Jersey on his fiftieth anniversary as pastor of the Saint Paul Baptist Church. Dr. Jackson preached his first sermon on Sunday, January 2, 1950. Since that time he has played a critical role in the Cinnaminson community. His spiritual guidance and open door policy has irrefutably changed the lives of many constituents in my district. Dr. Jackson was raised by his maternal grandparents in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He became a licensed preacher in 1940. Dr. Jackson also served his country in World War II in the European theater of operations. His faith in God and in country are to be applauded. He was baptized in the family church, First African Baptist, where he could be found practicing his musical talents. Dr. Jackson's aptitude for playing musical instruments is of particular note. His talents on the piano and violin must be appreciated. Dr. Jackson is well-known throughout the Delaware Valley. He has taken an active interest in the concerns of Cinnaminson Township in general and the East Riverton section in particular. He has served on the Human Relations Council of Cinnaminson Township and the Advisory Council of the New Jersey Water Company. Mr. Speaker, truly, Dr. Jackson is an inspiring figure in my district and in our nation. Congratulations, Dr. Jackson, on your fiftieth anniversary. May there be many more years of service to come.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my good friend, Richard A. Alaimo, as he is honored for his contributions to our community. Dick is founder and President of the Alaimo Group, Consulting Engineers, which is located in Mount Holly and Paterson, New Jersey. As a Consulting Civil and Municipal Engineer, and a licensed Professional Engineer in several states, he and his five associated firms have served over 70 municipalities and public agencies through the years. His staff of over 100 engineers, planners, architects and construction managers have completed numerous large state projects in addition to municipal design and reconstruction programs. Established over 30 years ago, Dick Alaimo's firm has designed facilities with constructed values in excess of $1 billion. Dick is a member of many civic organizations, among them the South Jersey Port Corporation, which he serves as Director and Chairman; Burlington County United Fund; Mount Holly Rotary; and, Rutgers University Foundation Board of Overseers. Through the years, he has been selected as recipient of various awards such as Outstanding Young Man and Outstanding Citizen of the Greater Mount Holly Area; Longsdorf Good Citizenship Award; Distinguished Citizen Award; and, one of the Outstanding Young Men in America. I am privileged and honored to recognize the accomplishments of Richard A. Alaimo, and to congratulate him on his service to the community.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleagues on the Transportation Committee for bringing this measure before the House. Earlier today the House adopted our colleague Wayne Gilchrest's Estuary Habitat Restoration bill. That bill provides an additional source of funds from the Corps of Engineers, in consultation with other Federal agencies, to restore the environmental health of our estuaries. As you know, most of the major estuaries in the United States have prepared plans under National Estuary Program to conserve and manage important estuary resources. Unfortunately, funds to implement those plans, particularly the expensive restoration components have been hard to come by. Wayne's bill, in conjunction with provisions that I authored which are also included in this package, will help address that problem. The provisions that I originally introduced as H.R. 1237 were passed by the House in May, and I am glad to see that they are again included in this estuary package. H.R. 1237 authorizes the funds to implement, in addition to just prepare, National Estuary Program plans. This is particularly important in my district where the Barnegat Bay Estuary is surrounded by a densely populated area. This high volume of land and water use makes wise and active management essential to protect and preserve the estuary's important ecological values. The Barnegat Bay Estuary Program has prepared a plan that I believe is up to the task of wise and active management, but only if it is implemented. Passage of this legislation, including H.R. 1237, is needed to assure that funds for implementation are available. I also commend the Committee for including in this package the Chesapeake Bay Program reauthorization provisions written by our late friend from Virginia, Herb Bateman. The Chesapeake Bay defined his congressional district, and it is only right that we make sure his bill becomes law this year. Estuaries fuel the growth of our fisheries and provide us with many recreational opportunities. However, the qualities that make them so special must be actively and aggressively guarded. This bill gives the tools we need to provide that protection. I urge my colleagues to support it this evening.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I welcome Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee of India--the Prime Minister of a key strategic ally of the United States and an important partner in the struggle against international terrorism. Mr. Vajpayee's government has achieved significant economic development, modernization, and consolidation of democracy in India. These accomplishments are all the more impressive when examined in the context of the terrorism India has to cope with on a daily basis. It is so easy for any government to seize on such a threat in order to centralize power at the expense of personal freedoms. It is so tempting to cite foreign security threats in order to legitimize a military coup. However, New Delhi has elected to fight terrorism and develop India without infringing on the population's democratic rights and freedoms. And this is a major, yet unheralded, triumph of both Mr. Vajpayee's government and the people of India. To comprehend India's recent achievements one must take a closer look at the terrorist threat posed to India. Despite undeniable achievements of the Indian security forces, the situation in Kashmir continues to deteriorate. The forces used against India now include a combination of Kashmiri fighters and a growing number of foreign operatives. The terrorist threat to India goes beyond the disputed Kashmir. Only a couple of weeks ago, Abu Abdul Aziz, one of the key Pakistani- sponsored Islamist leaders publicly defined the ultimate objectives of the Kashmiri Jihad: ``Our destination is not Kashmir. Our aim is that all of India be converted into a Muslim state.'' There was not a word of recrimination or even disassociation from Islamabad. In examining India's struggle against terrorism, one must remember the unique geo-strategic importance of the Indian sub-continent. North- west India, including Kashmir, is located at the edge of the Arc of Crisis. Stretching from the Caucasus in west, through Central Asia to northern India and the north-western Chinese province of Xinjiang, the Arc of Crisis is emerging as the world's next primary reserves of oil and gas--the Persian Gulf of the 21st Century. The Arc of Crisis is also the continental gateway to China and the Far East. Long term stability in the Arc of Crisis is therefore an indispensable interest of the United States. The long and deep coast-line of the Indian subcontinent are crucial for the stability and safety of the maritime commercial traffic in the Indian Ocean--mainly between Europe, the Persian Gulf and East Asia. The safety of maritime commerce in the Indian Ocean, as well as the oil fields of the nearby South China Sea, are also indispensable interests of the United States and the West. A friendly India is the key to furthering these U.S. interests. Hence, India is a bulwark of regional stability and consequently a guardian of crucial strategic and economic interests of the United States and the entire West. The national interest of the United States is to have a strong, democratic and prosperous India as an ally and a partner. India can stabilize the volatile yet crucial region--ensuring that the strategic and economic interests of the U.S.-led West are furthered and not infringed upon. Moreover, the rapid economic development growth of India makes it a most promising trade partner with the United States. For example, India's burgeoning software- developing industry is a major contributor to the U.S. computer industry. In the era of growing globalization, the U.S. can and should benefit from the Indian economic surge. However, to fully realize its potential, India must be free of subversion and terrorism. Therefore, the terrorism waged against India harm the national security and economic interests of the United States. Ultimately, a strong, democratic, and economically viable India serves and furthers the U.S. national interest. Hence the U.S. should stand side-by-side with India and cooperate in its struggle against terrorism. The U.S. should help the democratic goverment in New Delhi to continue and maintain the delicate balance between resolutely fighting terrorism and preserving democracy, civil rights and a rule of law for all. So far, the record of Mr. Vajpayee's Government has been both impressive and improving. The United States should applaud India for its reform efforts in the face of terrorism.

Mr. SAXTON

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