Jim Saxton

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of an extraordinary gentleman whom I have known personally for two decades. On September 15, 2007, Dr. Robert Messina, Jr. will be celebrated for his 20 years of Visionary Leadership at the Burlington County Community College in Mount Laurel, NJ. Dr. Messina has been instrumental in the expansion of the Burlington County College community. While upgrading and constructing new buildings at the main campus in Pemberton, Dr. Messina saw an opportunity to truly push the College to the next level. He was steadfast in obtaining land for a brand-new, state-of-the-art second campus, located in Mount Laurel. The College and local community has enjoyed the use of six permanent buildings, including a corporate training facility and conference center, known as The Enterprise Center. The College has expanded not only physically, but academically, as well. Dr. Messina implemented stimulating new programs that keep trend with today's industry demands. This new curriculum boasts Digital Media and Graphic Design, Biotechnology, Human Services, and several information technology certification programs that firmly cement Burlington County College as a leader in higher education for the twenty-first century. To further reach out and benefit the surrounding Southern New Jersey community, Dr. Messina devotes his free time to the betterment of his neighbors. In the past, he has served on the national, regional, and local levels. He currently sits on the boards for the Deborah Heart & Lung Center, the Virtua Hospital Audit/Corporate Compliance Committee, and is a member of the Virtua Ambulatory Board. Nationally, Dr. Messina served two terms as the President of COMBASE, a Cooperative for the Advancement of Community-Based Postsecondary Education, and is a former board member of the American Association of Community Colleges. Madam Speaker, Dr. Messina's infectious enthusiasm and abiding loyalty to his students is only surpassed by his genuine desire to embrace and enhance the community around him. As he celebrates 20 years of Visionary Leadership at Burlington County College, I would like to extend my sincere gratitude for his leadership, commitment, and service.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Let me thank the gentlelady for yielding. And let me begin by thanking my good friend and colleague, Chairman Tom Lantos, for the great high level of cooperation that was exhibited on this resolution on a bipartisan basis with Ms. Ros-Lehtinen and others. And also, let me acknowledge the great support of my friend, Mr. Faleomavaega, on the resolution. I rise today in support of House Resolution 508, obviously, which recognizes the strong security alliance between Japan and the United States and expresses appreciation for Japan's role in enhancing stability in the Asia-Pacific region in combating terrorism, and specifically in Japan's very significant contribution toward global missile defense. I am pleased to highlight our special relationship with Japan following World War II. Our alliance has served as a valuable conduit allowing the United States to achieve our security goals throughout East Asia. This dynamic nation is the world's second largest economy, one of our top trading partners, provides 600,000 U.S. jobs, and is actively engaged with many other democracies. Our two countries have encountered similar challenges and fought shared threats while working to guarantee political and economic freedoms for our citizens and for many others. This goal of spreading democracy-based prosperity became particularly evident following the events of September 11. Following these deplorable acts, Japan readily provided support for U.S. and allied forces. Their effort included invaluable maritime operations in the Indian Ocean, aircraft to conduct support missions for our troops in Iraq, and logistical support that even continues to this very day. These actions reveal Japan's dedication to eradicating the destruction caused by sponsors of terrorism. Japan's Maritime Self-Defense Forces have provided roughly 30 percent of the fuel used by U.S. and coalition warships. They are the third largest donor in country for relief and reconstruction in Afghanistan, and they have provided billions of dollars for reconstruction in Iraq, and Japan continues to renew the Anti-Terrorism Special Measures Law that allows for these activities to take place. I applaud them for recognizing that the international threats of terror will require the cooperation of the world's strongest democracies to effectively combat the growing capabilities and support systems of terrorist organizations. Our strategic relationship extends beyond Japan's involvement in the Middle East. Japan offers financial and material resources to the U.S.- deployed forces, 50,000 of which are stationed in the country. Several years ago, our two countries agreed to redefine and strengthen the missions of both of our military forces. My resolution mentions examples of this coordination by reducing the number of troops in Okinawa and expanding the cooperation of ballistic missile defense. Once again, I want to reiterate my thanks to Chairman Lantos and Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen for their assistance in bringing this to the floor today.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. I want to thank Mr. Hunter for yielding time and just say to my friend, Mrs. Tauscher, that I very much understand and appreciate the goals that she has in bringing this legislation forward, but, at the same time, I think there are some realities that we have to face relative to the subject that the bill addresses. The problem here is twofold. Number one, there is the issue of command flexibility. As Mr. Hunter pointed out just a few minutes ago, we learned in previous wars that making decisions on tactical activities in a war should not probably be made at the White House and probably should even less likely be made here by 435 Members of Congress. So while I very much appreciate and agree with the goal of making sure that every soldier and Marine and every member of the four services gets time to recharge their batteries between deployments, having a law which stipulates how precisely that is to be done is a very unwise thing to do. Secondly, let me say that this problem involves the total number of people that we have in the service. We make decisions from time to time, and sometimes those decisions are right, hopefully most of the time those decisions are right, but sometimes they are not. In 1991 and 1992, when we started to hear about the ``peace dividend,'' we decided, collectively, all of us together, some in disagreement, that it would be okay to reduce the size of the Army from about 18 divisions to the equivalent of 10. We collectively decided to reduce the number of people in the Army significantly, almost by half. So today we are operating with the equivalent of 10 divisions, made up in a different structure, a brigade structure; and today 20 of those brigades, Army and Marine brigades, are deployed in Iraq. When the Commander in Chief and his military commanders in the field decide they need to make changes, they make them based on need, based on threat, and based on operational plans and operational capabilities. That flexibility must in this situation, in my opinion, be preserved. So, while those of us on this side of the aisle certainly share the goals of the gentlewoman from California, this bill is most unwise and will do, as Mr. Hunter said, much more harm than good to our troops in the field.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the conference report of H.R. 1, the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act. This comprehensive bill addresses many of our homeland security issues, and as a conferee I am pleased that the conference report includes an important provision that protects those who see suspicious behavior and take the initiative to notify the authorities of their concerns. No one should have to fear prosecution for acting vigilantly and coming forward when they see something that doesn't seem right. If anything, we should be encouraging people to speak up when they see suspicious behavior while waiting to board a plane or shopping in a crowded mall. Take the alert store clerk in New Jersey who noticed suspicious activities on a tape he was asked to transfer to DVD. This young man was at work, saw something that didn't seem right, and alerted the authorities. As a direct result of his actions, a terrorist strike against a military installation in my district--Ft. Dix--was prevented. This man should be heralded as a hero, not prosecuted like a criminal. It may have taken some time, but my fellow conferees worked through their differences, and in the end supported the inclusion of this vital provision. Had this language not been included, who knows what untold tragedies could have occurred if observant individuals, afraid of possible prosecution, did not contact law enforcement officials. Again, I support this important measure and urge my colleagues to vote in support of the conference report.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman very much for his attention to this matter. Amendment Offered by Mr. Nadler

Mr. SAXTON. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. SAXTON. I would like to engage my distinguished colleague, Chairman Mollohan, in a colloquy regarding the importance of supporting ecosystem-based monitoring to better understand water quality and ecosystem effects on our fisheries. U.S. fisheries are experiencing increasing pressure as the near-shore marine ecosystems that sustain them deteriorate due to human activity and as blooms of jellyfish and other organisms that compete for food with juvenile fish like summer flounder grow in frequency and abundance. The present trend may well be the cause of significant economic harm to coastal communities in various areas along the coast. The lack of rebuilding in one of our most important coastal fisheries, summer flounder, may be an example of the downside to managing a fishery without taking into account the ecosystem impacts on its ability to rebuild. An ecosystem-based approach to management requires ecosystem- based monitoring. The use of innovative, cost-effective, place-based data collection systems would provide continuous high-quality data on a number of important water quality and biological parameters that will greatly improve the data which fisheries are managed. I hope, Mr. Chairman, you will consider allocating some of the programmatic resources in this bill to support the use of such new technologies that hold great promise.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr Speaker, as the author of this legislation, I am pleased the House is now considering H.R. 465. This simple non- controversial legislation will extend the Asian Elephant Conservation Fund at existing authorization levels of up to $5 million each year until September 30, 2012. During our public hearing on H.R. 465, the Fish and Wildlife Service, which administers this Fund, testified that: ``The Asian Elephant Conservation Act has greatly enhanced the conservation status of the Asian elephant''. There are currently only about 40,000 wild Asian elephants living in south and southeastern Asia. As a result, this species is listed on our Endangered Species Act, on Appendix I of CITES and on the World Conservation Union's Red List. In response to the ongoing slaughter of this keystone species, Congress adopted the Asian Elephant Conservation Act which I was pleased to sponsor in 1997. In the decade since its enactment, the Secretary of the Interior has carefully reviewed over 300 conservation projects designed to save Asian elephants for future generations. The Secretary has approved 183 of these grant proposals which have received $9 million in Federal funds and $11.3 million in private matching funds. As every witness testified, there is an overwhelming need to extend this important conservation program and there is no question that these conservation funds have had a profound impact on protecting this irreplaceable species. While everyone enjoys seeing elephants at the National Zoo, it is far more important that they continue to exist in the wild in Burma, India and Thailand. The road to extinction is a one- way street and we must work to ensure that the Asian elephant does not make that journey. I am proud to urge my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on H.R. 465, the Asian Elephant Conservation Reauthorization Act. It is an appropriate and sound investment of U.S. tax dollars.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to acknowledge the occasion of Rabbi Ellen Wolintz-Fields serving as today's guest chaplain. After that opening prayer, I might say that it is easy to see why our community is so graciously and well served by the rabbi. Her 3- year-old daughter, Cameron Elizabeth, is also with us here today, and we want to welcome her here as well. The opportunity for having visiting chaplain guests is very special as it allows religious leaders from different faiths to begin our day of legislative duty. On August 1, Rabbi Wolintz-Fields will celebrate her first anniversary as rabbi of Congregation B'Nai Israel in Toms River, New Jersey. Since 1950, this synagogue has served as a place of worship and guidance for teachings of Conservative Judaism while offering multiple support and volunteer services for our community. Today, the rabbi has over 400 families in her congregation. Throughout her time both studying and serving, the rabbi has received various awards and recognitions for her contributions to preserving the Jewish faith. She is a recipient of the Goldstein Prize for Jewish History and the Rosalyn Gooen Milians Education Award. While she has numerous noteworthy achievements, the Rabbi is particularly proud of her family. She is married to Jonathan Fields and, in addition to Cameron Elizabeth, they have a 1\1/2\-year-old son, Coby Dov. I appreciate the rabbi taking time from her busy schedule to visit Washington, DC in order to give the opening prayer in the people's House, and I am glad I had the occasion to assist her to do so.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise with great respect for the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and the author of this bill, but with strong opposition to H.R. 2956. Mr. Speaker, the short title of this bill is the ``Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act.'' But, Mr. Speaker, this bill is not responsible. It is irresponsible. This bill is an irresponsible political act that will put our troops in danger and will result in catastrophic consequences for the United States, for the Iraqi people, for Israel, for the greater Middle Eastern region, and for the rest of the world. As The Washington Post said in this morning's paper, this bill is being considered today for ``reasons having more to do with American politics than with Iraqi reality.'' We must oppose this bill for numerous reasons, but let me mention just three. First, this bill fails to highlight the consequences of reducing our force levels too early. Such consequences would have a devastating effect on Iraq, would embolden al Qaeda in Iran, and would have severe security impacts on Israel and throughout the Middle East. Al Qaeda and its proxies are engaged in a jihad against the United States and against the West. Al Qaeda's second in command, al Zawahiri, reaffirmed in a July 4 speech an al Qaeda plan to use Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia for jihadi planning and training against us. Second, instead of putting forward legislation that offers an alternative to the plan being implemented by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, this political ploy calls for a vague ``troop reduction'' to be a ``limited presence'' in a ``safe and orderly manner'' within 120 days; but it fails to define any of these terms. Specifically, this bill does not define what ``limited presence'' means. Does it mean 50,000 troops or 100,000 troops or 137,000 troops? What is a limited presence? No one knows. This is not a serious bill; it is a political bill. Third, the bill requires the President to address whether it is necessary for our Armed Forces to carry out missions such as, listen to this, protecting diplomatic facilities and U.S. citizens, whether it is necessary to carry out acts like acting to disrupt or eliminate al Qaeda, or if it is necessary to carry out acts including training and equipping members of Iraqi security forces. Let me ask my friends on the other side of the aisle, for goodness sake, what else would we do there? It is illogical to ask whether these missions are necessary and only proves once again that this bill is a political tool and not an alternative plan. There are also two other points that my colleagues should consider. First, the situation in Iraq is not conducive to a force reduction. As an example of why this is true, the British have indicated their intent to draw down and have pulled back to the Basra airport. And as a result, Basra is now in the center of a power struggle between Shiite elements and tribal leaders over control of oil and political power. Local governance control has fractured along militia lines because of a British redeployment like the ones we are talking about in this bill. Second, we need to remind ourselves of what happened in Beirut and Afghanistan when forces precipitously withdrew there. In October 1983, our Marine barracks in Beirut was bombed by Hezbollah with support from Iran. We withdrew our Marines in February 1984, and by that April, the remainder of the peacekeeping force had followed. That civil war continued until 1990 and Hezbollah emerged as a much stronger force, which to this day threatens the West. We should ask ourselves: Could the U.S. have prevented the rise of Hezbollah and the influence of Tehran had we not had a precipitous withdrawal like the one provided for in this bill? Second, in the 1980s, the Afghan resistance built momentum by recruiting Muslim fighters to wage jihad against the Soviets. The Soviet withdrawal of 1989 was followed by a civil war and the collapse of the government. The Taliban rose in 1993 and gained control of Afghanistan. In 1996, bin-Laden moved to Afghanistan where he forged an alliance between al-Qaeda and the Taliban. What followed were al-Qaeda attacks on the WorId Trade Center, Khobar Towers, the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the USS Cole, and then September 11th. My colleagues, ask yourself this: ``Could the U.S. have prevented the rise of al-Qaeda by responding to these threats?'' I want to urge my colleagues to keep in mind that the world is watching how the United States handles this tough challenge in Iraq. If we concede defeat and retreat, we will send a strong message of weakness and inability to remain committed to our allies and to our enemies. Tom Friedman noted in the New York Times this week that our withdrawal will mean ``more ethnic, religious and tribal killings across Iraq,'' adding, ``it will be one of the most morally ugly scenes you can imagine, no less than Darfur.'' The Post today also stated that a withdrawal will result in a ``full-blown civil war, conflicts spreading beyond Iraq's borders, or genocide.'' Picture the Iraqis who have helped us, picture them watch as we prepare to leave and picture them clinging to our vehicles in fear of their very lives as we start down the road from Baghdad. I believe this reckless abandonment of the mission in Iraq would send a clear message to the Iraqi people, our allies, and potential partners around the world that Americans are weak and cannot be trusted. In this world of transnational terrorism and proliferation we can not afford to stand alone. It is critical that we give General Petraeus the months we gave him to implement his strategy, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this dangerous bill. In this case national security should trump national politics. Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the participants of the House FelIows Program on the completion of their weeklong program. As an initiative of the Office of the Historian, this has been a unique opportunity for a select group of secondary education teachers of American history and government. This weeklong workshop is designed to help educators improve the knowledge and understanding of the ``People's House.'' One of the goals of the program is to develop curricular materials on the history and practice of the House for use in schools. Each Fellow prepares his or her brief lesson plan on a congressional topic of their choosing, and these plans become part of a teaching resource database on the House. During the school year following their participation in the House Fellows Program, each Fellow will have the responsibility to present their experiences and lesson plans to at least one in-service institute for teachers of history and government. Over the next 5 years, in selecting a teacher from every congressional district, the House Fellows Program will be able to impact over 10,000 high school teachers, providing an inside account of how the House of Representatives functions, and energizing thousands of students to become informed and active citizens. I know that all Members will join me in congratulating the following teachers who have successfully participated in this week's program: Ms. Lee Adelizzi, Toms River High School South, Toms River, New Jersey (NJ03, Saxton). Mr. Anthony Escalera, Montclair High School, Montclair, California (CA26, Dreier). Mr. Matthew Carter, Rialto High School, Rialto, California (CA41, Lewis). Mr. Herbert Fischer, Wadleigh High School of Performing Arts, New York, New York (NY 15, Rangel). Mr. Scott Kaplan, Largo High School, Largo, Florida (FL10, Young). Mr. Kent Padgett, Jefferson City Public School District, Jefferson City, Missouri (MO04, Skelton). Ms. Elaine Tubb, Charles County Public Schools, LaPlata, Maryland (MD05, Hoyer). Mr. David Williams, Prince William County Public Schools, Manassas, Virginia (VA10, Wolf). Ms. Valerie Ziegler, Abraham Lincoln High School, San Francisco, California (CA12, Lantos). I thank the Office of the Historian for sponsoring this program. Under the leadership of Dr. Robert Remini and Dr. Fred Beuttler, along with their staff, the Office of the Historian is dedicated to preserving, presenting, and fostering the history of the House of Representatives, the ``People's House.''

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman very much for his comments, and I appreciate our ongoing partnership and effort on issues such as this.

Mr. SAXTON. Madam Chairlady, I rise to strike the last word. Madam Chairlady, I would like to engage my distinguished colleague from Washington, Chairman Dicks, in a colloquy regarding funding for an important conservation project in the district I represent. The State of New Jersey has only 3 percent Federal land ownership and is also the most densely populated State in the country. From national parks and wildlife areas to soccer fields and city playgrounds, our investments in conservation, preservation, wildlife and recreation pay dividends each and every day. The coastal areas of our Nation are under extreme pressure for development. The Third District of New Jersey, where the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge is located, is no exception. It is vital that we assist our States and local governments in a true Federal/State/local partnership to purchase tracts of land like the one within the Forsythe Refuge boundary, environmentally valuable land that can be bought now but most likely will be lost permanently for future use in the very near future. I appreciate the challenges that the subcommittee faced in this difficult budget year; however, I am hopeful that we will recognize the importance of this project to the people that I represent and New Jersey as a whole. We have a responsibility to our children to ensure that green spaces remain to provide clean air and water and ample opportunities to enjoy wildlife and the great outdoors. The economy of the district I represent depends on a vibrant and healthy economy. I yield to my friend from Washington.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment for two very important reasons. First, there is a growing threat. Today's Herald Tribune, a newspaper owned by The New York Times, says that North Korea is developing new, long-range missiles capable of hitting Guam, an article from the Herald Tribune. The second set of reasons that I support this amendment is that while there is a growing threat there is a rapidly emerging U.S. missile defense system. Since 2001, our successes have been many. We have conducted 27 successful hit-to-kill intercepts. That's 27 out of 36 attempts. Therefore, let me just highlight some of the most recent successes. On September 1, 2006, we successfully employed an operational ground- based midcourse defense interceptor. In November of 2005, June 2006 and, again, in April of 2007, less than a month ago, we successfully deployed an SM-3 interceptor, both separating and unitary targets. In July 2006, January 2007 and April 2007, the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, THAAD, System successfully intercepted unitary targets. Finally, during the past March, we saw successful in-flight tests of the Airborne Laser Targeting System used for boost-phase intercept. Each of the near-term capabilities of PATRIOT, Aegis BMD, and GMD are only successful today because we provided them funding to test and develop them. Cutting the Missile Defense Agency by $764 million will have the exact opposite effect. Therefore, knowing that our warfighters are asking for additional missile defense capabilities as soon as possible and that we have a missile defense system that actually works, Congress should not reduce defense spending on missile defense in light of the growing and clearly demonstrated threat by our adversaries.

Mr. SAXTON. Madam Chairman, this amendment, is perhaps well intended but goes much too far. This together with the $764 million that has already been cut from the bill provides us with a 20 percent cut in the missile defense program. Since 2001, contrary to what the proponents of this amendment just said, the Missile Defense Agency has conducted 27 successful hit-to- kill intercepts. That is 27 out of 36 attempts. I am very proud of these results. Let me just highlight some of them. On September 1, 2006, we successfully employed an operational ground-based mid-course defense interceptor. In November 2005 and in June 2006, and again in April 2007, less than a month ago, the SM-3 successfully intercepted both separating and unitary targets. In July 2006, January 2007, and April 6, 2007, the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, THAAD, System, successfully intercepted unitary targets. Finally, during this past March, we saw a successful hit in-flight test of the Airborne Laser Targeting System; all successes, not failures.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Hunter, for yielding. Mr. Chairman, one of the provisions that is contained in this en bloc amendment is a provision that will help provide a higher level of security for our military personnel in the continental United States. As most of you probably read in the newspaper, a terrorist cell was apprehended in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, a short time ago. They had been planning a small arms attack on soldiers, Reservists, actually, who were preparing to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan at Fort Dix. One of the elements of this planning involved a pizza delivery man. The pizza delivery man would access the base to deliver pizza to soldiers in the evening who had completed their day's training. As the apprehension was made, it was disclosed that this individual had actually entered onto the base, memorized the roads and the buildings on the base, and had actually drawn a map to provide to the other members of the cell who would take part in the attack. This provision that's in this en bloc amendment would provide some extra tools for base commanders to be sure that people who enter onto Federal installations would have a background check done through the FBI, as well as through the Department of Homeland Security where immigration records are kept. I want to thank Mr. Andrews for his high level of cooperation on this, and also to express my thanks to the chairman for agreeing to make this provision part of this en bloc amendment. I understand there are some questions about it. Mr. Andrews and I, I won't speak for him, as we work through this, between now and the time we get a conference report, there may be some changes that are necessary. The last thing we want to do is to unduly restrict civilian activities, legitimate civilian activities on and around military bases. So I look forward to working with the chairman, the ranking member and Mr. Andrews and others who may be interested to make sure that we do not do something that is harmful to morale or stymies activities on or around military bases.

Mr. SAXTON. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON. Madam Chairlady, I'd like to yield 4 minutes to the ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

Mr. SAXTON. Madam Chairlady, I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota, who joined this House several years ago after having spent 25 years in the Marine Corps, Congressman John Kline.

Mr. SAXTON. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin), the ranking member of the Oversight Subcommittee.

Mr. SAXTON. Madam Chairwoman, I yield the remainder of this minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland) for purposes of a motion. motion to rise by mr. westmoreland

Mr. SAXTON. Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the ranking member of the Terrorism Subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).

Mr. SAXTON. Madam Chair, I would like to yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the Seapower Subcommittee, Mr. Bartlett.

Mr. SAXTON. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Military Personnel Subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh).