Jim Saxton

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. SAXTON

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

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's reservation in order that we may discuss the history and the provisions of this bill. Both the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] have worked exceedingly hard both in the House and in the Senate. That effort culminated just a few days ago with a 99 to 0 vote in favor of this bill in the Senate. It simply implements most of the provisions which we provided through the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans. Subsequently, the Committee on Resources in this House in passage on the floor here, it also implements the Panama Declaration to protect dolphins and sea life. It is a conservation measure which is extremely important to fishermen on the west coast. It is a compromise that was reached with opponents of the bill, and although it is not perfect, I believe it is a good bill and a bill that should be supported by everyone in the Chamber this afternoon.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 408] to amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 to support the International Dolphin Conservation Program in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto and concur in the Senate amendment.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to respond to the gentleman from West Virginia by saying that to me at least and I think to most other Members of the House, the status quo in Israel and in the Middle East is unacceptable. And inasmuch as we have the responsibility to oversee at least the expenditure of American taxpayers' dollars, it seems to me that what we ought to be doing is to try to find a way to change the dynamic that exists currently in the Middle East to make peace a possibility. Obviously not only the events of the last 24 hours but the events of the last several months have borne out full well that peace is not at hand in the Middle East. And to the extent that we can affect that, I think we should do that. To me the status quo is not acceptable and I believe that this is a step in the right direction. I will include for the Record, Mr. Chairman, today's article from the Washington Post, Palestinian panel charges widespread corruption by Arafat's entire cabinet, as well as an article from the Washington Times, Arafat's cabinet should be dissolved, lawmakers from Palestine report. Up to $340 million, half of the Palestinian Authority budget, is estimated to have been misspent or embezzled. Obviously these are very serious charges and during this 90-day period these matters can be looked into as well. The essence of this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is to provide for an opportunity for our administration to submit various information to this House relative to the Palestinian Council which changes those specific articles of the Palestinian national charter which deny Israel's right to exist or support violence. We also ask to the maximum extent possible to preempt acts of terror, discipline violators, publicly condemn acts of terror and dismantle terrorist organizations. All of these things were agreed to in the Oslo accords and, of course, agreed to on the lawn of the White House between the Israeli leader and Yasser Arafat. So to the extent that we can effect change in the Middle East, to the extent that we can promote peace by changing the dynamic of the situation there, which obviously is unacceptable to the great majority of the Members of this House, I believe that we should do so. I also believe, Mr. Chairman, that that is a primary reason that agreement has been reached on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the articles to which I referred: [From the Washington Post, July 30, 1997] Palestinian Panel Charges Widespread Corruption by Arafat's Entire Cabinet (By Said Ghazali) Ramallah, West Bank.--A Palestinian legislative panel today reported wide-ranging corruption--including diversion of foreign aid donations--in all 18 Palestinian ministries. It urged Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to fire his entire cabinet and called for three ministers to be put on trial. The panel was formed in response to an official comptroller's report that found $326 million of the Palestinian self-rule administration's $800 million annual budget had been squandered through corruption or mismanagement. While the panel has no legal authority, its report puts Arafat on the spot--compelling him either to repudiate his political allies or face rising public anger over financial abuses. The Palestinian leader quickly sought to cast the report in a positive light. His spokesman, Marwan Kanafani, praised it and said it provides ``a strong basis'' for cabinet revisions that Arafat was already planning. Legislators and some members of Arafat's own administration, however, faulted the panel for failing to investigate whether Arafat played a role in any wrongdoing. ``The mismanagement starts from the top--way up on top,'' declared Husam Khader, a legislator from Nablus. The five-member investigating panel was made up of members of Arafat's Fatah party and independent members of the legislative council, which has been locked in a power struggle with Arafat over its role as an elected lawmaking body. Although the report does not fault Arafat personally, analysts say it could jeopardize his standing should he fail to act on it. The panel's findings come at a time of increased anger among Palestinians over brazen shows of wealth by government officials, including the purchase of huge villas and numerous expensive cars. The report declared that the cabinet had failed to follow up reports of mismanagement, and it urged Arafat to replace it with one ``made up of technocrats and qualified people.'' It also recommended criminal trials for three cabinet ministers, including Nabil Shaath, the chief negotiator in peace talks with Israel, who is accused of charging his home telephone and electric bills to the government. Among other allegations in the report are: Information Minister Yasser Abed Rabbo used $7,500 in ministry funds to pay for central heating at his home; Transportation Minister Ali Qawasmeh accepted bribes to license cars that did not meet road standards; Civil Affairs Minister Jamal Tarifi allowed illegal exemptions from customs duties for more than 4,300 cars, including a Jaguar for his father; Tarifi's Civil Affairs Ministry and Shaath's Planning Ministry misappropriated funds from unnamed foreign donors. Besides Shaath, the panel called for putting Tarifi and Qawasmeh on trial. Both strongly denied wrongdoing. Shaath accused the panel of being ``out of touch with reality'' and said it never approached his ministry for information. Agriculture Minister Jawad Saleh criticized investigators for stopping short of Arafat's office. ``The report is important because it is a first attempt by the legislative council to look into offenses by officials,'' Saleh said. ``But it is not comprehensive and . . . does not deal with sensitive issues like security organizations and the office of the president. I blame the president.'' Arafat's administration has been buffeted by other recent allegations of corruption and mismanagement. In June, attorney general Khaled Kidrah stepped down after being accused of pocketing bail money and taking bribes from prisoners. Internaitonal donors have pledged $1.5 billion to Arafat's three-year-old administration, including $225 million from the United States. But far less has actually been delivered, in part because of concerns about lack of accountability.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered today by my colleague from Massachusetts, Mr. McGovern. I would like to thank Mr. McGovern for offering this amendment and I would like to thank Chairman Callahan for his strong support for allowing this amendment to come to the floor. This amendment will help families in America who have sought international adoptions from Paraguay. Let me take a quick moment to express how important this is, especially to the children waiting to be adopted. A family from Berlin, NJ, Lori and Ira Bussison have been working to adopt a child named Alex since his birth almost 3 years ago. Despite the fact that Alex's biological father abandoned his mother during her pregnancy and his biological mother placed the child up for adoption immediately after giving birth, the Paraguayan court system refuses to let this adoption to become finalized. While Lori and Ira remain hopeful, each time it seems like Alex will be allowed to come to America with his new parents, the family is told of another unknown technicality preventing this adoption from becoming finalized. Recently, Lori spend 3 months living with young Alex in a hotel, thinking the adoption case would soon be finalized. Heartbreakingly, when it became apparent that the court system would continue to stall, Lori, financially drained, had to return to America without Alex yet again. We must look at the best interest of the family and especially the children. A boy like Alex deserves loving parents like Lori and Ira. Passage of this amendment will show that the U.S. Congress cares about these families and is willing to do its part in finalizing these adoption cases. I strongly support the McGovern amendment.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], chairman of the authorization committee. (Mr. Gilman asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel]. (Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I would just like to say in closing my part of the debate that there are many Americans who have watched and prayed about the peace process in the Middle East. Everyone that I know wants it to work. The fact of the matter is, it is not working. For the concerns of those of us who believe that the agreements are not being lived up to, in spite of everyone's best intentions, this amendment will provide an opportunity during a 90-day period for the President of the United States to take a close look at whatever violations have been alleged and then certify as to whether or not these in fact have been violations and then if necessary and if appropriate and if the House decides further that it is appropriate, then obviously aid to the PA will begin.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is an amendment which suspends aid, direct aid to the Palestinian Authority. It has been drafted with cooperation of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel], the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler], and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Forbes], which obviously makes it a bipartisan amendment. At the conclusion of the 90-day suspension period, if certain conditions are met and attested to by the United States administration, then aid could resume. I believe this is an absolutely necessary amendment given the events of the past six months or so. I know there are others who wish to speak on this. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin just my short, very brief remarks by just saying I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel] and the others who have spoken and to say that as terrible, as terrible as today's event was in Jerusalem, where there were at least 18 people killed and up to 200 apparently injured by 2 suicide bombers, today's event unfortunately was not unique. It was not unique because when people are killed in a cafe in Tel Aviv or a fruit and vegetable market in Jerusalem or any of the other in a long series of events like this, civilized people in a civilized society cannot tolerate it, and obviously those of us who are here who feel as deeply as the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel] obviously does and others do as well, that we have got to take steps which are left to our devices to see to it that those events stop. And without going into further explanation, I would just say that either later tonight or tomorrow or the next time we consider the continuation of the foreign ops bill that we are going to start momentarily, I have filed an amendment which will do that. It makes a very strong and substantive statement on direct aid, I underline the words ``direct aid,'' to the Palestinian Authority and puts very strong and certain conditions which must be met by the Palestinian Authority and Mr. Arafat before any further funds are released directly to the PA. So I hope that when we get to that bill we can find unanimous agreement in this House that this is the proper course at this time, given the string of events which were capped by the event in Jerusalem today.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Concurrent Resolution 124 is introduced in response to illegal actions taken by Canadian fishermen on the weekend of July 19, 1997. Two hundred and fifty Canadian fishermen illegally blockaded an Alaskan ferryboat leaving from Prince Rupert, British Columbia. By taking these actions, Canada has escalated the Pacific salmon treaty negotiations beyond the scope of the treaty. The gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], the chairman of the Committee on Resources, has referred to the blockade as goon squad tactics. While I do not go quite that far, I find the blockade very unfortunate and very disruptive to negotiations, negotiations which are extremely important to another species, several species actually, of the Northwest salmon population. House Concurrent Resolution 124 asks the President to use all necessary and appropriate means to compel the Government of Canada to prevent any further illegal actions. In addition, the resolution urges Canada to return to the negotiations this fall after the fishing season has ended. I would also like to urge Canada to return to the negotiations without further incidents. Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely important matter. It affects the livelihood and the lives of American citizens, many of whom live in the State of Alaska. It is also important because this House, along with the other House and our Government, and I am sure the Canadian Government as well, would like to take appropriate and necessary steps to provide for the rebuilding of salmon stock in the Northwest. This incident that occurred just a few days ago stands in the way of that process. We believe that it should be brought to a hasty end. Mr. Speaker, House Concurrent Resolution 124 was originally referred to the Committee on Resources and the Committee on International Relations. The version we are taking up today under the suspension of the rules has been modified to address concerns raised by the Committee on International Relations and is now referred solely to the Committee on Resources. I urge my colleagues to support this timely and much needed resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to close by saying that on the domestic side in the United States and on the Canadian side in Canada, it is extremely important that we reach agreement internally in this country as well as in Canada and between our two countries on a plan that will reverse the decline in the population of the Northwest Pacific salmon. We are working diligently with Members from four northwestern States to try to arrive at an American plan. We are working with the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] because a very important part of the salmon stock comes from Alaska. And we are hopeful that the folks in British Columbia will be able to put in place a conservation plan for that part of the stock. But it goes without saying that unless we have not only domestic cooperation, and, incidentally, we have tentatively scheduled a hearing in Idaho on this very matter during the break, during the August break for, I believe, the 15th of the month, and so we are diligently doing what we can to try to reverse the population decline of this species. I personally appeal to the Canadian Government and to others who may be aware of our discussions here today to move as rapidly as we possibly can on an international basis to bring this very important conservation matter to a conclusion. We care about American fishermen, we care about Canadian fishermen, and we care about the salmon stock very much. That is why we are moving so diligently to try to accomplish the goals outlined here today. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 124), expressing the sense of the Congress regarding acts of illegal aggression by Canadian fishermen with respect to the Pacific salmon fishery, and for other purposes, as amended.

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 to include extraneous material on the legislation just considered, H.R. 1855, S. 430 and House Concurrent Resolution 124.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, we have no additional speakers at this time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 430) to amend the act of June 20, 1910, to protect the permanent trust funds of the State of New Mexico from erosion due to inflation and modify the basis on which distributions are made from those funds.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, S. 430 is identical to H.R. 1051, a bill introduced by my colleague, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen]. S. 430 is a result of very hard work by the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] and the entire New Mexico delegation and has no opposition from the Administration. Furthermore, this bill is very beneficial to citizens of New Mexico. I would also like to commend my other colleague, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Schiff], who has added his support to the bill. S. 430 would amend the New Mexico Enabling Act of June 20, 1910, in order to protect the permanent trust funds of the State of New Mexico from erosion due to inflation by modifying the basis on which distributions are made from those funds and by loosening the current investment restrictions. The modifications include changing the payout to a fixed percentage of the fund, thereby allowing a portion of the interest and dividend income received to be reinvested. This bill would also loosen investment restrictions and allow broader investments options and opportunities. Mr. Speaker, this bill has already been overwhelmingly endorsed by the voters of New Mexico, has been passed by the Senate, and I urge my colleagues to support S. 430. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen], the author of the House bill, who has worked untiringly to bring this bill to the floor, and my gratitude to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] for the hard work that he has pursued on this measure.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just begin my very brief remarks by thanking the gentleman from Hawaii for his ardent and helpful effort with regard to moving this bill swiftly through the committee and bringing it here to the floor. The gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie] and I have worked very closely together and I want to express my deep appreciation to him at this point. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support, obviously, of H.R. 1855, a simple and straightforward measure that will place a moratorium on large fishing vessels in the Atlantic mackerel and herring fisheries. Why is congressional intervention and management of these two species needed? Well, herring and mackerel are the two fisheries on the east coast that have not been fished to death yet. Mackerel, the mackerel world market and the prices have increased substantially because the eastern European countries can no longer depend on Government support and because the demand for mackerel and herring in those societies has grown to an unprecedented level. This has created an economic reason to fish on these two species and it has created therefore new fishing pressure. Herring has just recently recovered from being badly overfished. This recovery caused serious pain among the New England fishermen who had to find an alternative source of fish in order for them to survive. They increasingly turned to cod and haddock at Georges Bank, which has since been overfished and that fish stock has now crashed. Now herring is being targeted once again. Now it looks as though the Atlantic herring and mackerel fisheries are faced with a new disastrous threat. Large fishing vessels are poised to enter these fisheries. High prices and the apparent abundance of these species has attracted the attention of fishermen and businessmen throughout the world who have responded by investing in large fishing vessels to harvest this American resource for sale overseas because there is no market here. The market is overseas. The capacity of each of these vessels exceeds 50 metric tons per year. That is a large fishing vessel, to say the least. One such vessel plans to begin harvesting this fall. It is therefore imperative that we establish safeguards to prevent another fishing disaster like those suffered by redfish, shark, striped bass, as well as cod and haddock, which I mentioned before. There are a number of things that we need to point out. Fact No. 1, we do not know with any certainty how many fish, that is, mackerel and herring, there are. The National Marine Fisheries Service, which we know as NMFS, has not done a stock assessment specifically on herring and mackerel stocks. The only information we have on these species is from a complex large pelagic survey that was done and incidentally, just incidentally, mentions herring and mackerel. Therefore, fact No. 1 is that we do not know how many fish there are. Fact No. 2, the moratorium is temporary in nature but it is also an emergency measure. The moratorium on large fishing vessels will only last as long as it takes the National Marine Fisheries Service to do a separate stock assessment on herring and mackerel to find out how many fish there are, two tremendously important east coast fisheries. Imagine that, knowing how many fish there are before we begin to take them in large numbers. So fact No. 2, we need to do stock assessments before additional fishing pressure is brought to bear on these species. Fact No. 3, the councils that care for these fisheries or regulate these fisheries are moving quickly to preserve them as well, but they need more time. The mid-Atlantic and New England fisheries management councils have passed resolutions and motions to protect these fisheries from overharvest. The councils need the time to react to what could be a sudden unsustainable increase in the harvest. This bill gives them the time to develop fishery management plans which do not exist at this time. Fact No. 4, the National Marine Fisheries Service has guessed that the mackerel fishery can sustain only about 150,000 metric tons of annual harvest. Three of these large vessels, which are poised to enter this fishery, could easily meet and possibly exceed this harvest within a single year. It is not clear that the resource can withstand this fishing effort and remain healthy and viable. Therefore, we need to take care of the management plan before this fishing pressure starts. The National Marine Fisheries Service seems content to wait until the stocks crash before taking action to protect these fisheries. That is why we need this moratorium. As someone who has witnessed the pain and suffering experienced by fishermen from New England, I do not believe that we should fish now and pay later. We must end this cycle of destroying our resources without knowing how much fishing pressure they can endure. Help to conserve the Atlantic herring and mackerel stocks by voting ``yes'' on this bill, H.R. 1855. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, yielding myself such time as I may consume, as has been stated here with regard to the species in question, there is a significant population of herring and mackerel, and we believe that it is important that we maintain a balance within the ocean ecosystem and that this species should be protected from overharvesting. We do not want, in other words, history to repeat itself, as it did with the shark population, when the National Marine Fishery Service, in the 1980's, declared it an underutilized species. The species was fished on with very, very heavy fishing pressure. And by 1993, the National Marine Fisheries Service had to declare the shark fishery an endangered fishery. As with regard to other historical precedents, red fish in the Gulf of Mexico, in 1980 it was declared an underutilized species, and by 1986, with the taking of more than 10 million tons a year, the species became overutilized, overfished, and endangered. Another example is with regard to an international problem with regard to the Atlantic blue fin tuna. During the 1970's, blue fin were abundant all over the north Atlantic and the south Atlantic, as well. Today, the blue fin population, because of overfishing, is just 13 percent of what it was back in those years. So, in order to avoid this occurrence with regard to herring and mackerel, I urge passage of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1855) to establish a moratorium on large fishing vessels in Atlantic herring and mackerel fisheries, as amended.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I took out this 5-minute special order to hopefully bring some perspective to some of the things that were said here in the House this week. Mr. Speaker, it has been said over and over again that the agenda for the majority party, at least, in the House over the past several weeks has been threefold; one, to move toward a balanced budget; two, to reduce the tax burden on the American people; and three, to save Medicare. I would like to talk about the first two of those three issues for just a couple of minutes, as I said, to try to bring some perspective to this week's debate. I recently read an article that was written, an op ed piece, by an individual that I know who is quite famous in the economic world. His name is Milton Friedman. He is a fellow at the Hoover Institute. He wrote about the economy of this country and, because of what has happened, is in the process of happening in Hong Kong, compared our economy with the economy and the historical perspective of Hong Kong. He noted in his article that the economy of the United States on a per capita basis used to be seven times larger than the economy of Hong Kong. In other words, for every man, woman, and child in this country, we had seven times more economic power than an individual in Hong Kong. Over the years since as we have moved through history the two countries have actually come much closer together, because today on a per capita basis we are no longer seven times bigger than the Hong Kong economy. As a matter of fact, we are almost the same; a difference of just 7 percent. In other words, our total economy on a per capita basis is just 7 percent larger than Hong Kong's. In other words, we have come from a situation like this to a situation on a per capita basis where we are almost the same. The majority party here recognizes that the kind of growth that we would like to see economically is, in a sense, demonstrated by Milton Friedman's remarks in his article, because we would like to see our economy continue to grow, and for individuals to prosper as they once did. That is exactly why we think it is very important to balance the budget and to reduce taxes. Mr. Speaker, a lot was said around here this week about reducing taxes. We believe that it should be done in an extremely fair way. That is why, as this chart to my left shows, 76 percent of the tax relief that the Republican party has presented to the American people and in fact passed goes to people who make less than $75,000 a year. They are the workhorses in our economy. They are the families who sit around the dinner table each night and talk about the day's activities. They are the families that also plan for their tomorrows. We wanted those people to have the benefit of the tax cuts. That is why we did it in a very balanced way, as the next chart also demonstrates. This shows American taxpayers from the lowest income 20 percent, through the highest income 20 percent. We tried to balance our tax cuts so we would not change the distribution of who pays how much in terms of the total tax load that is sent here to Washington, DC. Mr. Speaker, under the current tax plan as it exists today, 63 percent of the total dollars that are sent here are paid by the highest 20 percent. That is way over on the other end there, demonstrated by the red bar. The yellow bar shows that under the Republican tax plan, 63 percent will still continue to be paid by the highest 20 percent. The same is true of the next percent, the percentage between 60 percent and 80 percent. Under the current tax plan passed in 1993 by the Democrats and Bill Clinton, 21 percent of the total tax load is paid by that quintile, as we call it, and under the Republican tax plan, 21 percent will be paid by that same quintile. The same is true of people who are in the third quintile, in the second quintile, and in the very lowest quintile, which does not change either. So as we move toward a smaller Government, as we move toward a less expensive Government, as we move toward an economy that is what it used to be, we believe it should be done in a balanced and fair way. That is what my friends on the other side of the aisle have been disagreeing with throughout this week.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Monday, July 14, 1997, it adjourn to meet at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, July 15, 1997, for morning hour debates.