Jim Saxton

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, we have a ways to go. Our strategic airlift, that is the lift that we use to get to far places around the world, over the last several decades has been carried out in basically 3 fashions. We have the C-141s that started to come on line in 1962; we have C-5s, a great fleet of C-5s, although they are old too. They also came on line in the 1960s. We also have a fleet of aircraft which we in effect rent from the airlines which are called the craft fleet, and they are pressed into service in time of surge when we need to get someplace in a hurry. They are regular commercial aircraft, freight carriers that we use, for the most part, and also passenger carriers, but freight carriers for the most part that we use in conjunction with the C-141s and C-5s. The C-141s are worn out and absolutely will be out of service, for the most part, with the exception of one wing, that I am aware of, that will be flying out of McGuire Air Force base up in New Jersey, and a few C-141s by aught 3 that will be used by the Reserves. Other than that, the C-141s are going away. The C-17 buy that we have put in place to replace in effect the worn out C-141s are in the process of coming on line. We are ramping up so that we can produce and bring on line 15 a year. We are currently, I believe, at 10 a year, and we currently have a wing of them down in Charleston, another wing going out at McChord Air Force base on the West Coast, and so between now and aught 3, aught 4, aught 5, that buy will be completed. In talking with the Air Force leadership just the other day, we have the need, they believe, for about 15 or 20 additional, in addition to the 120 that we have already committed to buy, and that request will be formally made in the 5-year plan as it begins to unfold. The C-5 fleet is also worn out, and this is a big problem, because there is a debate currently going on in the Air Force. In fact, I am going out to Travis Air Force base in the next few weeks to look at the possibility, a proposal that the Air Force is making on modernization of the C-5 fleet. They need new hydraulics, new engines and new aeronautical devices to bring them up to speed so that they can fly in today's modern world. The problem with the C-5 is that today, because they are old and worn out, they have the ability to take off, on average, only 7 out of 8 times they try.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, on February 27, 1997, I introduced with Majority Leader Armey a bill to expand the IRA system. In today's Congressional Daily, the headline is ``Kasich Enters IRA plan into Social Security Sweepstakes.'' This is good news. It goes on to say House Budget Chairman Kasich today floated a plan to use part of the windfall, meaning the surplus in our budget, to establish a government system of individual retirement accounts. This is good news. H.R. 891 would increase the amount that one could contribute over a period of years from today's maximum of $2,000 to $7,000 annually. It would also increase the salary threshold from today's level to $110,000, including all Members of the middle class. It would also permit withdrawals for a number of purposes, including medical expenses and education costs, in addition to those already permitted. This is a good bill. I urge all my colleagues to become cosponsors.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in tribute to the 100th anniversary of the Borough of Seaside Park, New Jersey. Seaside Park is celebrating their 100th anniversary on March 2, 1998, and will be holding a ceremony on Thursday, March 5 at 8:00 p.m. at the regular meeting of the Town Council. Other events will take place this summer, including an Ocean Mini-marathon swim on August 15, a Dinner Dance on August 21, and a Centennial Parade on August 22, to be followed with a fair with children's games and music. The history of Seaside Park began in the late 1800's, and early settlers found the area so beautiful, they planned to create a park; thus the name Seaside Park. The early settlers were self-reliant people, and through their efforts they built a strong and vibrant community. In those early days, residents hauled sand to create the first roads, and many residents kept cattle, horses, and chickens. In 1872, the U.S. Life Saving Service was established, with William O. Miller as the first captain. The Life Saving station became the Coast Guard Station with the founding of the Coast Guard in 1915. Today, the station serves as a meeting facility and is home to the borough offices. Train service to Seaside Park began July 4, 1881, when the train made its first run from Philadelphia to Seaside Park. The railroad station, built in 1882, is now the site of the Municipal Complex. In 1899, the Seaside Park Yacht Club was built. Seaside Park's famous Sewell Cup for catboats was originally presented by U.S. Senator William Sewell during opening race ceremonies in 1900. The Sewell Cup is still raced today. In 1913, Seaside Park's Volunteer Fire Department was established. That year, the company built their first vehicle, a horse drawn hose truck. A large iron gong was rung whenever there was a fire, and residents responded. The gong is presently located outside the firehouse at the Municipal Complex. In 1938, the Tri-Boro First Aid Squad was formed. The squad originally covered the area from Lavallette to Barnegat Inlet. In 1973, Seaside Park adopted its official Borough Seal. The seal is divided into three parts, representing the trinity of land, sea and air, which are symbolized by the native beach plum, striped bass and a sea gull. The colors of the seal are blue for nobility, gold for preciousness, and white for purity. Mr. Speaker, today the Borough of Seaside Park prides itself on its excellent beaches, its quality of life, and its community spirit, where neighbors know and care about each other. I would therefore like to recognize all of the citizens of Seaside Park and their Mayor, John Peterson, Jr., and the Centennial Committee Chairperson, Ms. Nancy Carlson, for their ongoing and continuing pride and love for their town. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Borough of Seaside Park on this historic milestone, and wish them a happy, prosperous and successful next century.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 927) to reauthorize the Sea Grant Program, as amended.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 927, a bill to reauthorize the National Sea Grant College Program. This bill is very similar to the legislation that I introduced in January, 1997, and in fact, that bill passed the House with 422 votes on June 18. Mr. Speaker, the bill that passed the House on June 18 by a vote of 422 to zero was virtually the same as this bill. The House bill had the bipartisan support of 107 cosponsors, including the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), Committee on Resources chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), ranking Democrat, and the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans. The version of the bill adopted by the House was a compromise version adopted by the Committee on Resources and the Committee on Science. The National Sea Grant College Program was established by Congress in 1966 to improve our Nation's marine resources and conservation efforts, to better manage those resources, and to enhance their proper utilization. S. 927, the National Sea Grant College Program Reauthorization Act of 1997, authorizes funding for Sea Grant through fiscal year 2003; simplifies the definition of issues under the Sea Grant authority; clarifies the responsibilities of State and national programs; consolidates and clarifies the requirements for the designation of Sea Grant colleges and regional groups; and assures that the Sea Grant research will be adequately peer reviewed. It also authorizes funding for timely research on oyster diseases and oyster-related human health risks, Pfiesteria and other harmful algae blooms and zebra mussels. Mr. Speaker, I have carefully reviewed the language in this Senate- passed legislation and find it substantially the same as that passed here; and I support the changes approved by the other body with the minor changes we are making today. By enacting this legislation, we will be sending a clear message supporting the conservation and researched-based management of our marine and coastal resources. The Sea Grant program has been a big success, and I am pleased that after 3 years of hard work we are now poised to extend this most important environmental program. Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote on this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to thank the gentleman for his very kind remarks. Mr. Speaker, this is good legislation and I am sure it is legislation that every Member of the House will want to support. But this legislation is just an example of what can be done when we work on a bipartisan basis. The gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), who has served for 3 years as the ranking member of the committee, has been a major, major contributor to the bipartisan spirit that has permitted us to move through issue after issue and, frankly, without rancor, and frankly I cannot think of a time that we have come to the floor with major legislation since the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) has been the ranking member when we have had a disagreement. We work things out ahead of time. We do it in an amicable way. As a result of that, we have been able to pass legislation that deals with the marine environment, been able to pass a major legislation that deals with fisheries resources, major legislation that deals with the marine mammal, the Marine Mammal Protection Act. We passed legislation on protection of coral reefs. We reformed the national refuge system with new legislation last year. We were able to pass a bill to promote volunteerism in the refuge system. We were able to pass coastal estuary issues to protect wetlands and so on along many coastal areas of our country, all because of the bipartisan spirit that has been exhibited by the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) and what he has brought to the committee. Also, the gentleman is never at a loss for words when he is speaking up for the sea grant program, which also exists at the University of Hawaii, I would point out. He has been an outstanding advocate for his home, the humpback whale sanctuary and, of course, the National Undersea Research Laboratory, which is also in Hawaii. So I would just like to say it is not aloha, probably. He will still be a member of the committee, even though it will not be the ranking member, and I will look forward to working with the gentleman on these issues as they come back to visit us and many others, I am sure, along the way. It has been a pleasure over these past 3 years serving with the gentleman from Hawaii, and I will look forward to continuing our relationship.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Republican Conference, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 354) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 927, the Senate bill just passed.

Mr. SAXTON

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

Mr. SAXTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his kind words. Madam Speaker, at this time I have, as far as I know, no additional speakers, and so with just one thought I am prepared to yield back the balance of my time. I was made aware earlier today that there is a regulatory problem off the shores of Massachusetts that relates to Nantucket and the State waters there and the Federal waters through which fishermen must pass on their way back to the mainland. I understand that there is a regulatory issue, and I have talked with the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] about this issue, and we both have agreed that we will try our best in the first couple of months of 1998 to deal with the National Marine Fisheries Service relative to these issues.

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

Mr. SAXTON. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that we are on the verge of enacting H.R. 1658, the Striped Bass Conservation Act of 1997. The House passed two prior versions of this bill in the last Congress, but, regrettably, they were not acted upon by the other body. Today, however, we can complete the legislative process by voting to agree to the Senate amendments to this important legislation. The first sentence of the Striped Bass Conservation Act of 1984 states that the Atlantic striped bass are of historic importance and of great benefit to the Nation. I would like to assure all of my colleagues of the truth of this statement. These fish are renowned for their fighting ability and have been an important part of the lives of generations of east coast fishermen from all parts of the Northeast. When this country was settled, striped bass were one of the most abundant natural resources that staggered early explorers. Captain John Smith, exploring the Chesapeake Bay in 1608, wrote that striped bass were so abundant that he thought he could walk across the bay on the backs of stripers without wetting his feet. Unfortunately, the striped bass population has not remained all that bountiful. In the 1970's, heavy fishing pressure on the species coincided with water pollution and other environmental changes, and the population plummeted. The thriving industry that stripped bass had supported was nearly wiped out, and it seemed that this flagship species might disappear completely. Congress responded to the crisis by enacting the Striped Bass Conservation Act of 1984. The act put teeth in the existing interstate management plan for striped bass. It created the Federal enforcement mechanism for the plan, authorized studies of the causes of the decline, and provided for regular population assessments. This law assured that the States would adopt the tough regulations that were required to bring the species back. Madam Speaker, the Stripped Bass Act has turned out to be a huge success. After a period of persistently low populations in the 1980's, the species has rebounded to its highest levels in the last 30 years. The sacrifices that fishermen coast-wide have made to bring the stripers back have paid off, and my constituents in New Jersey as well as all striper fishermen from North Carolina to Maine can once again count this fish among the abundant natural resources with which our region is blessed. This bill reauthorizes the Striped Bass Act for the next 3 years. It authorizes continued funding for the population assessments and adds studies of stripers to related species. Although stripers are recovered, they are still at risk from the numerous natural and man- made factors. This bill will ensure that we remain vigilant so that we can protect the gains that we have made in recent years. The House passed this bill on July 8; the Senate has now passed the legislation with several amendments. The amendments make small changes related to the Secretary of Interior's role in enforcement, authorize a socioeconomic study on the benefits of Atlantic striped bass resource, and clarify provisions regarding striped bass regulation in Federal waters. These changes are not only acceptable, they actually enhance the bill. In fact, I wish I had thought of them myself. Reauthorizing the Striped Bass Act has been a long process. Fortunately, as William Woods of the Massachusetts Bay Colony said in 1635, men are soon wearied with other fish, yet they never are with bass. I strongly urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on H.R. 1658 with the improvements adopted by the other body. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 1658) to reauthorize and amend the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act and related laws.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1658.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill, the ``Sound Science for the Environment Act,'' along with Mr. Abercrombie, that would create a National Institute for the Environment (NIE). The sole mission of the NIE will be to improve the scientific basis for environmental decision-making. The United States spends more than $150 billion a year on pollution control and environmental clean up. Yet, less than 2 percent of that amount is spent on the background science to fully understand these problems before we legislate and regulate them. As we have seen on countless issues from clean air standards to endangered species habitat, from global warming to nonpoint source pollution, the credibility and impartiality of the science underlying our decisions is a topic of heated debate. However, very little has been done to provide unbiased science or to link it with policy-making. This legislation is an effort to put some substance behind the calls for ``sound science''. Our legislation envisions the creation of the NIE within the National Science Foundation, a significant difference from similar bills I have supported in past Congresses. Operating as part of the NSF will provide the National Institute for the Environment with opportunities to function more effectively, and will accord it a position of stature within the scientific community. Mr. Speaker, the NIE's sole purpose will be to come up with the best available science on a particular subject. That science will be used by us, the nation's lawmakers, who have been entrusted by our constituents to make the soundest environmental decisions, in their trust and their children's trust. We therefore must ensure that we do base our decisions on sound science. No politics, no interest group pressure, no lobbying. . . .just straightforward sound science by the country's best scientists. Importantly, this information will not be compiled by regulators, as the NIE is entirely a non-regulatory body. The NIE will support original scientific research, in addition to data assessment. The NIE signifies a new approach to environmental science by integrating knowledge assessment, research, and educational training. The NIE will be created by consolidating some environmental science programs and redirecting funds from programs that are not a high priority and not cost-effective. To minimize cost and bureaucracy, the NIE will not operate laboratories and research facilities, but will competitively award peer-reviewed grants to the best scientists in academia, the private sector, government. With the Federal Government's current fiscal constraints, Congress needs to implement cost-effective, integrated environmental science that underpins our environmental policies. The question is not whether the federal government will play a role in environmental science, but rather, the accuracy of that role. Thus the need for the NIE. Once we have the best environmental science and information at our fingertips, we can begin to make more informed environmental decisions based on the most accurate, reliable and unbiased science. The dividend returned on this investment will be long-term and will establish a true legacy to future generations. Mr. Speaker, we all share the common goal to inject credible, peer- reviewed science into environmental legislation and regulations. This legislation will serve to accomplish that goal. I encourage all my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this bipartisan legislation. Please include for the Record this line-by-line summary of our bill, the ``Sound Science for the Environment Act.'' Outline of the Sound Science for the Environment ACT to Establish the National Institute for the Environment This outline describes legislation to create a National Institute for the Environment (NIE), with the mission to improve the scientific basis for decision-making on environmental issues, & for other purposes. Section 1. Short title: the ``Sound Science for the Environment Act.'' Section 2. Findings: The Congress finds the following: A healthy environment is essential to an enhanced quality of life, a competitive economy, & national security. The United States lacks an effective mechanism for providing & communicating a comprehensive, objective & credible scientific understanding of environmental issues in a timely manner to policy-makers & the public. An appropriate understanding of the diverse scientific issues that underlie the environmental problems facing the United States is essential to finding environmentally & economically sound solutions to these problems. To be useful, this understanding requires the integration of ongoing assessments of the state of scientific knowledge with credible problem-focused research, the communication of scientific information, & the appropriate education & training of environmental scientists, engineers, & other professionals. These scientific activities are best carried out through a neutral, institution without regulatory responsibilities, where the public & private organizations and individuals can establish a shared understanding of the state of scientific knowledge on environmental issues, & support research, education, and information exchange to expand and spread the state of knowledge. A National Institute for the Environment will allow the Nation to more effectively use science to improve environmental decisionmaking, thereby reducing costs and saving lives. Section 3. Purpose: Create an institute to improve the scientific basis for decision-making on environmental issues by integrating the functions of knowledge assessment, research, information services, education & training, provide national leadership in environment science and research, and facilitate the sharing of public and private resources to enhance understanding and communication of scientific knowledge about the environment. Section 4. Establishment: Authorizes and directs the National Science Foundation to establish a National Institute for the Environment with a mission to improve the scientific basis for decisionmaking on environmental issues. Directs that management of the Institute be awarded competitively. Section 5. Duties & Functions: Sets the duties of the Institute to: 1. Initiate, facilitate, & where appropriate perform assessments of the current state of knowledge of environmental issues & their implications; 2. Award competitively peer-reviewed grants & where appropriate, contracts, for extramural scientific research; 3. Establish a National Library for the Environment as a universally accessible, easy to use, electronic, state-of- the-art information system for scientists, decisionmakers, & the public; 4. Sponsor education & training of environmental scientists & professionals & improve public environmental literacy. Section 6. Governing board: Establishes a Governing Board composed of 18 members appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, which shall establish goals, priorities, & policies of the Institute, & will include approximately equal numbers of scientists & users of scientific information on the environment. Ensures diverse composition including representation of States, academic institutions, business, labor, environmental groups, other citizens groups, women & minority groups. Ensures geographic diversity. Provides for 6-year terms of office in order to provide stability. Designates one member of the National Science Board to serve on the Governing Board. Section 7. Management and Staff; Provides for a Director, Assistant Directors, & staff. Directs that the Institute be operated by a non-profit organization under contract with

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I have spoken on a number of previous occasions on the need to expand IRA accounts. Today I would like to cite the need for middle-class parents to save for college education as an important reason for further IRA expansion. Earlier this year, I introduced a bill to expand IRA income caps and deductions to permit penalty-free withdrawals for a number of purposes, including college education. And I am very pleased that the tax bill we passed last summer lifted some of the income caps to benefit more middle-income families. Although good progress has been made in the expansion of IRA eligibility for college expenses, much more is needed. The main problem is that IRA deduction ceilings remain, and have remained so for some decades, at $2,000. It is inadequate. The solution is to increase IRA deduction. My legislation would increase it $500 annually for 10 years, ending up with a $7,000 cap. Perhaps a more aggressive schedule could even be kept and it would be possible if current budget trends do result in a budget surplus.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my friend from Oregon talk very articulately about the needs of middle-class Americans, and I agree. The middle-class American family has many needs; the need to, of course, provide for current-day living expenses, the need to provide for the futures of their kids and save money for that, the need to provide for safe retirement programs for themselves, the need to provide housing, et cetera. We did something good for middle-class America this year, because we put in place an Individual Retirement Account Program extension to help them save for those things, because, you see, today, under the Tax Code, the norm is that when we earn money, we are taxed on that income, and then when we put that money away for some future use and we earn income in the form of interest or dividends or capital gains, we are taxed again. So on a lot of America's income, we are not taxed just once, we are taxed twice, once when we earn it and once when it earns some income for us. So, wisely enough, on a bipartisan basis for middle-class American families, we decided this year to expand the IRA program, and, as far as it went, it was good, and it is good. This year, the eligibility level or the income total amount that a family can earn is not any longer $40,000; it is twice that, it is $80,000. It used to be, last year, that if a spouse was a homemaker, that spouse could not take the full $2,000 provision in the way of a deduction and put that money away tax-free. Henceforth, he or she will be able to do that. We also permitted withdrawal without penalty for first-time home buyers, and that was certainly a great expansion. We also put in place a little provision to help save for our children's higher education, and that was good. So we did some pretty neat expansions. But let me say it seems to me that that only goes partway to where we need to be. The IRA program is good, it has been proven good for middle-class American families, and has been proven to help people save. It has encouraged savings throughout our society, and it seems to me that in all the talk that is going on around here about tax reform, that we ought to look at how we can help even more. Now, the $2,000 limit we are still living with today was established decades ago, and decades ago $2,000 was a lot of money. It is still a lot of money, but it was multiple times as much money in real terms back when it was established. Some time ago, I introduced a bill to increase that $2,000 amount by $500 a year for 10 years, so that 10 years from the time my program would be adopted, the amount that we could save, put away each year in our IRA and have as a deduction, would be $7,000. Built on top of the $2,000 that we have now, $500 a year for 10 years, 2 plus 5 is 7. I think that is real progress. We also proposed that middle-class America, yes, middle-class America fits within $80,000, but when you have got a couple of folks working, say they are both schoolteachers, and say the combined income is $100,000; today they do not even qualify under the expanded program that we put in place this year. So I suggest we increase that not to $80,000, as we already have, but to $100,000, so hard-working families whose mom and dad go out and make $50,000 apiece working hard can also qualify. In addition, we might want to consider there are some other worthwhile needs we need to save for and can withdraw from the program without penalty. Retirement is one currently, higher education is one currently, and first-time home buyer is one currently, with different little ramifications along the way. Unemployment is a need we have traditionally saved for, and we might want to consider adding unemployment as a provision we could withdraw for without penalty. Adoption is another one, obviously, that folks on both sides of the aisle talk about as being a very worthwhile activity. So we might want to look and talk among ourselves about some other things that we could withdraw from the fund for penalty-free. So, the individual retirement account bill I think is a very worthwhile bill to consider in terms of expansion. I call the new bill that I introduced the Individual Reinvestment Act, or IRA. The Individual Reinvestment Act. Let me also say, Mr. Speaker, that as chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, I know that throughout our society not only would individuals who save under this program benefit, but our entire economy and our entire society would also benefit under the program, because one of the things that is absolutely necessary for economic growth across the board is the ability to have access to capital. When people in small businesses or people in medium-sized businesses or people in large businesses want to expand their business, they have to borrow, and having those funds available in institutions to be borrowed is very important. This bill will help expand the pool of money available to us as well. So, Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for this time. I urge everybody to give this matter very serious consideration.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today, along with my colleague, George Miller, the Rhino and Tiger Product Labeling Act of 1997. This legislation will amend the landmark Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994, Public Law 103-391, to ensure that no person may import any product labeled or containing any species of rhinoceros or tiger into, or export any such product from, the United States. Regrettably, all five species of both rhinoceros and tigers are critically endangered. For nearly 20 years they have been listed as endangered on both appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora [CITES] and our own Endangered Species Act. In the case of tigers, their future is particularly bleak. In fact, it has been estimated that there are now less than 5,000 animals living in the wild, which is a 95-percent decline from the beginning of this century. There are fewer than 500 South China and Siberian tigers left in the world. Despite the enactment of Public Law 103-391 and the approval of several valuable tiger rescue grants financed by the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund, these irreplaceable species continue to be killed by poachers for their fur, as well as for other body parts. Shamans and practitioners of traditional medicine, especially the Chinese, value almost every part of the cat. Tiger bone powders and tablets have been used for generations to combat pain, kidney, and liver problems, rheumatism, convulsions, and heart conditions. Mr. Speaker, the population estimates for the rhinoceros are slightly better than tigers with 11,000 animals living in the wild. Nevertheless, there are several rhino species that are teetering on extinction. For instance, there are only 100 Javan and fewer than 500 Sumatran rhinos left on this planet. While human population growth and competition for land have contributed to the destruction of rhinoceros habitat, the major cause of this species' decline has been the insatiable demand for products made from rhino horn. In Asia, rhinoceros horn obtained almost exclusively from illegal sources has been used for generations to treat headaches and fever in children. By killing these flagship species, poachers are reaping huge financial rewards. In fact, Asian rhino horn is selling for up to $60,000 per kilogram and tiger bones can sell for over $1,400 a pound. In order to save these species, we must eliminate the market for these products and stop consumers from purchasing medicines made from endangered rhinos and tigers. While it may be difficult to change traditional healing practices in China, Taiwan, and Vietnam, we can stop their importation into the United States. I am told that on any given day, a consumer can visit a drug store or pharmacy in such cities as Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington, DC, and purchase prepackaged medicines that clearly indicate they contain rhino and tiger parts. While some U.S. Customs agents will confiscate these products prior to importation, unfortunately it is virtually impossible to conclusively determine even in a laboratory that the active ingredients in the medicine originated from a rhinoceros or a tiger. We can solve this problem by enacting the Rhino and Tiger Product Labeling Act. This legislation stipulates that if a label on a product says that it contains rhinoceros or tiger parts, then we can prevent it from coming into the United States by making the legal presumption, without any further scientific tests or analysis, that it violates our trade laws. In essence, it is a Truth in Labeling for these endangered species and if manufacturers choose to try to sell their medicines without a reference to rhinos or tigers, then consumers are not likely to purchase them. Mr. Speaker, if there is any hope of saving rhinoceros or tigers for future generations, then we must stop the sale of products containing these animals and 1998 is the year of the tiger according to the Chinese calendar, and passage of this bill would be an effective way to celebrate this occasion. I would urge my colleagues to join with me in this vital effort by cosponsoring the Rhino and Tiger Product Labeling Act of 1997. I would also like to thank the World Wildlife Fund and Traffic U.S.A. for their outstanding leadership in this issue and for dramatizing the plight of rhinos and tigers. We must work to ensure that the last rhino and tiger is not killed on our watch.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1856) to amend the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a volunteer pilot project at one national wildlife refuge in each United States Fish and Wildlife Service region, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, as the author of H.R. 1856, I am pleased to present the House of Representatives the National Wildlife Refuge System Community Partnership Act. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has a very successful program to encourage volunteer activities at the national wildlife refuge and other service field stations. Last year, for example, over 25,000 volunteers donated nearly $11 million worth of services, ranging from staffing of visitor centers to hunter safety classes to operating heavy equipment. I introduced this bill after a field hearing at the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge in my district in New Jersey that addressed a large number of maintenance backlog issues. Mr. Speaker, I urge an aye vote on H.R. 1856. Mr. Speaker, as the author of H.R. 1856, I am pleased to present to the House of Representatives the National Wildlife Refuge System Community Partnership Act. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has a very successful program to encourage volunteer activities at National Wildlife Refuges and other Service field stations. Last year, for example, over 25,000 volunteers donated nearly $11 million worth of services, ranging from staffing visitor centers, to hunter safety classes, to operating heavy equipment. I introduced this bill after a field hearing at the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge in my district in New Jersey that addressed the large maintenance backlog at refuges. We heard from several local volunteer conservation groups who pointed out some problems with the existing volunteer program. This bill is intended to solve these problems. First of all, the biggest obstacle to improving the volunteer program is a shortage of staff at refuges. We can't expect refuge employees who have full-time operation and maintenance duties to also donate all of their weekends to working with volunteer groups. H.R. 1856 would address this problem by establishing pilot projects at seven refuges for the purpose of hiring full-time volunteer coordinators. This will make it much easier for the Service and conservation groups to work together for the benefit of refuges. Second, H.R. 1856 makes it easier for interested individuals and groups to donate money or services to refuges. It would ensure that gifts to a particular refuge will actually go to that refuge, instead of disappearing into a nationwide account. Third, the bill will allow refuge managers to enter into cooperative agreements with local conservation groups to conduct projects on refuges. Again, these provisions are designed to make it easier for refuge managers to cooperate with local organizations. For example, if a volunteer group were interested in constructing a wildlife observation tower or other improvement at a refuge, this section would allow the refuge manager to contribute materials or staff assistance to the project. All of these provisions are designed to make it easier for volunteers who are interested in helping to conserve fish and wildlife to contribute their skills and enthusiasm to our National Wildlife Refuges. Many of my colleagues have worked hard this year to improve Refuge operations and maintenance through the appropriations process, and to enact the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, which was signed into law on October 9th. However, it is the thousands of volunteers who directly donate their time and energy who really make the difference on the ground. By making it easier for them, this bill will enhance an already successful program and ultimately benefit fish and wildlife conservation throughout the National Wildlife Refuge System. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw].

Mr. SAXTON

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

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, just as a point of order, if I may would it be possible that I can yield to the gentleman from Michigan, and we will all be happy here, right?

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 948) to reaffirm and clarify the Federal relationship of the Burt Lake Band as a distinct federally recognized Indian Tribe, and for other purposes.