Jim Saxton

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 3 p.m. on Monday next.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, let me begin my brief remarks by commending the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane] and other members of the Committee on Ways and Means for trying to keep what I would define as a good balance between various groups of taxpayers in this bill. The colloquy that we just heard, Mr. Speaker, is just a continuation, and I might say a very good continuation, of the debate that was started by Secretary Rubin 10 days or so ago, when we began to try to point out that the Republican proposal, which this motion seeks to change, benefits the more wealthy taxpayers in this country, which is simply not true. As a matter of fact, the balance that I spoke about just a minute ago, which the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] and others on the Committee on Ways and Means have been so careful to try and maintain, is exactly the same balance that the Democrats voted for in 1993 and that Bill Clinton signed into law, the same balance among various groups of taxpayers. This chart will help me to explain what I mean. This chart shows in 20 percent jumps five groups of taxpayers ranging from the 20 percent lowest group of taxpayers to the 20 percent highest group of taxpayers. Under the bill that was voted for by all of you in 1993 and subsequently signed into law by President Clinton, 1 percent of the taxes that are paid in this country are paid by the lowest 20 percent of the taxpayers. Conversely, 63 percent of the taxes that are paid in this country, as shown by the red line at the far end of the chart, 63 percent of the taxes that are paid by all taxpayers are paid by the highest 20 percent. And as you note, coming from right to left, this way, 21 percent are paid by under the current tax system by the second 20 percent down, if you will, and 11 percent and 4 percent and back to the 1 percent. Now, the balance that I speak of that is so important in the Republican proposal maintains exactly the same ratios as demonstrated by the yellow bars at the far end. Still under this proposal, 63 percent of the total taxes that are paid, I want my friends to understand this, are still paid by the highest quintile or the highest 20 percent. Likewise, 21 percent of the total taxes that are paid are paid by the fourth quintile or the step down one notch, 20 percent. That is those taxpayers between 60, who are between the 60 and 80 percent mark. So this is very important. What this motion seeks to do is to change this balance rather dramatically, as Secretary Rubin tried to do 10 days or so ago before our debate when we passed the Republican proposal, and the colloquy that we just heard also seeks to disrupt the ratios that all of you supported in 1993. I frankly, Mr. Speaker, have a hard time understanding why if it was good in 1993, why it would be bad under the Republican proposal that passed this House just a few days ago. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I hope that this helps to clear up this matter somewhat.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I would respond to the gentleman by saying that the chart that I just showed demonstrates full well that 84 percent of the taxes that are paid in this country are currently paid by people who are in the 60 to 100 percent number of people who pay taxes. That is the highest incomes. So that 84 percent of the total taxes that are paid in this country under the Republican proposal are likewise paid by that same upper income group.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, this is really a pretty simple debate we are in. Let me just refer to this chart once again. I want particularly the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Ford] who just spoke to understand this. Mr. Speaker, this is a chart which shows who pays taxes in America and what the Republican plan will do to various categories of people who pay taxes. It is important to point out that in the top 40 percent of the taxpayers in America, those people pay 84 percent of all the money we have here to spend, I would say to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Ford], the top 40 percent of the taxpayers in America pay 84 percent of all the money that comes to Washington to spend. So when the Republican tax plan gets ready to change things, do we change things for that group? This chart shows we definitely do not. As a matter of fact, the top 20 percent today under the Clinton tax hike plan pay 63 percent of all the money that is paid to Washington, and under the Republican plan we do not change that at all. They still pay 63 percent. The next 20 percent today under the Clinton tax hike plan pay 21 percent, and under the plan that we propose, they continue to pay 21 percent; no breaks for the rich, just equal treatment.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] for yielding this time to me. Let me just say I rise in strong support of this bill, and I want to commend particularly the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger] who has spent so much time and has dedicated so much of himself to bringing us here, to bringing us here today. Let me say to my good friend from California, Mr. Miller, with whom I have shared so many common positions on environmental issues, I am not going to go down the litanies of things that the gentleman pointed out in terms of where this bill may differ with other national policy that we have passed here, but I would say to the gentleman that we in this House have got to stop looking at environmental issues from a white and black point of view. There has got to be some middle ground, and I believe this bill finds that middle ground. In fact, for the past 2\1/2\ years I have been advocating State and local participation as a means to rationally implement laws like the Endangered Species Act. Only those closest to home of endangered species can understand the impact of protecting them and the impact on local people and on local businesses, and that is why in my opinion the future of environmental protection is on State and local partnerships with the Federal Government. Mr. Chairman, that is what this bill brings to us. H.R. 858 is a bill that puts this theory of State and local in a Federal partnership into place. H.R. 858, the Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery and Economic Stability Act of 1997, implements a 5-year pilot project, a locally conceived solution to a forest health crisis in California. This program is aimed at maintaining community stability, improving forest health and preventing wildfires and making fuelbreaks in our national forests in the district of the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger] which are so important. What is so unique about this bill is its origins. In direct response to President Clinton's directive at the Forest Summit in April 1993, the Quincy Library Group was formed. It was comprised of local environmental organizations, the wood products industry, citizens and local officials. They took seriously the President's charge at that April meeting when he said, ``When you leave here today, I ask you to keep working for a balanced policy that promotes economy, preserves jobs and protects the environment.'' He said, ``I hope we can stay in the conference room and out of the courtroom.'' The Quincy Library Group plan emerged, and it is based on the Sierra Nevada ecosystem project and vastly improves the odds of saving endangered species habitat from fire damage. My colleagues may hear from some environmental groups that my friend from California was advocating, whose position he was advocating, that they are not thrilled with the bill. Some of their criticism stems from the perception that the administration did not have enough negotiating time to draft an alternative solution. I do not agree. The bill was not even drafted until the plan remained unimplemented by the Forest Service for 1,400 days. That is 4 years. And H.R. 858 was then introduced on February 22, 1997, with bipartisan support. In conclusion, H.R. 858 shows that locally conceived environmental solutions are possible and should be encouraged by Congress, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the bill.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, about a month ago, when we were leading up to the debate that we had and the successful passage of the tax reform bill, the treasury department kicked off a major debate in this country by releasing some statistics, suggesting that the congressional tax relief bills were tilted toward the rich. In other words, the tax relief bill that we were passing was going to give larger tax breaks to the rich than it was to the middle class. And, of course, Secretary Rubin made a big point that we were not doing enough to take care of the less well off. As we began to look into it, and this is not new news anymore, but as we began to look into the situation, we found out that one of the things Secretary Rubin did was to fail to report his findings in a fashion that the American people could understand. And I guess I would have to conclude that Secretary Rubin did that on purpose. Because instead of talking about family income in a way that we would all normally talk about it, either in someone's annual salary as it is reported, when somebody comes home and they are sitting around the family dinner table and their little boy or girl says to dad, ``How much do we make?'' and dad says, ``Well, my salary is $40,000,'' or ``My salary is $55,000,'' or whatever it is, we all understand that. Or we can also understand that when we fill out our income tax form each year, we get some deductions and we get down to what we really pay taxes on under the current tax code. That is called adjusted gross income. The American people and I and everybody else can understand what that is. But Secretary Rubin computed family income by using a term called family economic income. That means he took the gross salary that everybody made, not adjusted gross income, but the total amount, and added in a number of other income factors to that which Americans do not normally relate to as income to their family. For example, let us say a family makes $60,000 and let us say they live in a house that is worth $150,000. Well, the economic rental income of that house, now remember they have a mortgage and they are paying the mortgage and they are paying their taxes on the house, but if it is worth $150,000 and the rental value of that house if it were on the market for rent would be maybe $1,200 a month, Secretary Rubin took $1,200 a month and multiplied it by 12 and said, OK, let us see, that is $12,000 plus another $2,400, that is $14,400 a year that the family has in family economic income. So you take the salary level that the family earns, say it is $60,000, and add $14,400 to it and that is part of family economic income. And if you are like most people have some kind of retirement plan, the buildup of money in the retirement plan also became part of family economic income. And so, as was pointed out by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] just a few minutes ago, a family that had an income of $50,000 or $60,000 could look at Secretary Rubin's charts and find out that they make $85,000 or $90,000 a year, when, in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Now this was done I think as a way to skew the numbers to make it look like the Republican tax plan actually gave bigger tax breaks to people who were more well off than they did to people who were less well off. So when we began to analyze this, we used the more normal numbers that would be used by most anyone who is thinking about how much families make, and this chart depicts what we found when we looked at how the tax code the new tax plan will affect taxpayers in various economic groups. For example, here is the lowest 20 percent of taxpayers on this end and the highest 20 percent of taxpayers on the other end. Now, 63 percent of the American people, under the current tax code, 63 percent are in the highest tax bracket, the highest 20 percent. And under the new tax plan, guess what, there is no change whatsoever in that number, continues to say that 63 percent of the people are still in the top tax bracket. I will just conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying, as we move on down, we see very clearly that there is no change whatsoever in any of the numbers as it relates to people who pay taxes and how much they pay under the new tax plan, it is the same identical amount as the old.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering H.R. 1658, the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act Amendments of 1997. I have stood here many times to speak about striped bass and the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act. In fact, I represent many Atlantic striped bass. Young stripers live the first part of their lives in the Delaware River, at one end of the third district of New Jersey. When they grow up, they inhabit the bays, inlets, and coastal waters at the other end of the district. My other constituents who are recreational fishermen consider striped bass one of the premier saltwater game fish on the east coast. They support a large industry of charter boats, bait, and tackle shops, and other businesses, not only in New Jersey but all along the Altantic coast. In other east coast States, striped bass also support a significant commercial fishery. The larger importance of striped bass is that they nearly disappeared 20 years ago. In the late 1970's, heavy fishing pressure and inconsistent State management policies coincided with pollution and other environmental factors to cause a serious population crash. This devastated the commercial fishery and nearly wiped out the species as a game fish. Congress responded by enacting the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act, which enforced a single management plan throughout all the east coast States. This allowed fisheries managers to take the action that was needed to end overfishing and restore the population. Over the last 13 years, this program has succeeded beyond any expectations. In 1984, the outlook for striped bass was bleak. Now, they are as abundant as they have ever been. Striped bass are one of the few true success stories in fisheries management, and stand as an example of how conservative, forward-looking management can bring an irreplaceable resource back from disaster. H.R. 1658 would continue this successful program. It updates the objectives of the Striped Bass Act to reflect the current state of the fishery. It makes technical corrections to increase consistency with the Atlantic States Cooperative Fisheries Management Act, which governs other coastal fisheries. It increases public input into striped bass management plans. Most important, it reauthorizes the annual striped bass study. This study started in 1980 and provides the information that fisheries managers need to make good management decisions. Without these studies, the restoration program would have been much less successful. Likewise, a shortage of information will compromise future management efforts. We need the best information possible to protect the gains that we have made. Only a commitment to careful study and conservative management can ensure that striped bass will remain a livelihood for commercial fishermen, a thrill for anglers, and a common sight in east coast waters well into the future. Mr. Speaker, this bill will continue an extremely successful program. I urge you and all other members to support it.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I have a noncontroversial amendment to title 29 of the bill dealing with wildlife conservation on military lands or, as it is better known, the Sikes Act. During the past 3 years, my Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans conducted two hearings on the Sikes Act and the House, on two separate occasions during the 104th Congress, approved legislation to extend this landmark statute. Regrettably, this legislation did not become law and the Department of Defense [DOD], the Department of the Interior [DOI], and the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies have been engaged in ongoing discussions on the details of a reauthorization bill. I am happy to report that those negotiations have now been successful and that the language contained in my amendment has been endorsed by DOD, DOI, and the States. The Sikes Act is the law under which land under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense is managed for fish and wildlife-related conservation and recreational purposes. The Department of Defense controls nearly 25 million acres of valuable fish and wildlife habitat at approximately 900 military installations nationwide. These lands, equal in size to the State of Kentucky, contain a wealth of plant and animal life, and provide vital habitat for migrating waterfowl and nearly 100 federally listed threatened or endangered species. Enacted by Congress in 1960, the Sikes Act provides a mechanism for cooperative wildlife management on these military installations. It is time to reauthorize this Act. Under the terms of my amendment, which I am offering on behalf of Chairman Don Young, Chairman Joel Hefley, and me, the Sikes Act will be reauthorized for 5 years; integrated natural resource management plans will be required on all military installations with significant fish, wildlife, or natural resources; and certain elements are required for those plans--including fish and wildlife management, wetland protection, and fish and wildlife-oriented recreation. The Department of the Interior and the States will have a meaningful role in the development of those plans and wildlife-dependent recreation, such as fishing and hunting, will be facilitated on all military lands, where appropriate. In addition, the Secretary of Defense shall submit an annual report to the Congress describing the number of integrated natural resource management plans in effect, the amount of money expended on conservation activities, and an assessment on whether these plans comply with the act. Finally, this amendment will allow the Department of Defense to transfer any wildlife conservation fees collected at a military installation that has been closed to a DOD facility that will remain open in the future. Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this noncontroversial amendment which will not only reauthorize the Sikes Act but will improve its effectiveness.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to thank Chairman Spence and the committee for adding language to the Defense Authorization Act that would help resolve United States commercial disputes against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. As many of my colleagues are aware, in the late 1970's and early 1980's, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia refused to pay hundreds of millions of dollars owed to American firms. After years of inaction on the claims filed on behalf of these companies, language was included in the fiscal year 1993 defense appropriations bill establishing a claims resolution process for these cases. It charged the Secretaries of Defense, State, and Commerce with issuing periodic reports on the status of pending claims. While many of these claims were resolved under this process, there are still debts outstanding. The directive language included in this bill is intended to re-open the claims process set up in 1993 and require the Department of Defense to conduct a broad and comprehensive search into any remaining claims. With Saudi Arabia now seeking admission into the World Trade Organization, I believe it unconscionable that they refuse to settle their debts with private businesses. over the years, at least 50 Members of Congress have urged the Saudis to pay their debt, but nothing has happened. Mr. Chairman, I am hopeful this directive and the ensuing report will illustrate to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia the importance of honoring debts. I am also prepared to offer this language every year if necessary until each claim outstanding is resolved. I want to thank Chairman Spence again for his time.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 437, a bill to reauthorize the Sea Grant College Program. I introduced H.R. 437 on January 9 of this year. The bill was referred to the Committee on Resources and then to the Subcommittees on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, which I chair. I am pleased that the bill has the bipartisan support of 107 cosponsors, including the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], chairman of the Committee on Resources; the gentleman from California, Mr. George Miller, the ranking Democrat; and the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, my good friend, the gentleman from Hawaii, Mr. Neil Abercrombie. I would also like to thank at this point the members of the Committee on Science, particularly the chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] who, incidentally, celebrated his 29th birthday just 4 days ago, and we wish him every happiness in his 30th year on this planet. The gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert] was also very helpful.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I rise to compliment the gentleman from Louisiana for a very well thought out amendment, Mr. Chairman. Obviously New Jersey's Sea Grant Program involves some research relative to oysters. This is a side of the aisle, different but equally important angle. I offer my strong support and ask others to do the same.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, the Farr amendment will maintain authorization of the Sea Grant International Program which promotes shared marine activities in nations which have mutual interest with the United States. As we all know, the world is 70 percent covered with water, and the oceans and their resources recognize no political boundaries. It is helpful to our national interests to have a mechanism through which we can collaborate with other coastal nations on research that will ultimately affect all of us, so I believe the Farr amendment is well- intended, well-written, and I rise in support, and ask others on this side of the aisle to support his amendment as well.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just like to take a couple of minutes to close the general debate by saying that this is obviously a program that is very important all across the country. Nowhere is it more important than my home State of New Jersey, where a full 10 percent of all of the marine science consortium members are from New Jersey, headed up, of course, by the sea grant university, Rutgers University. Through these 31 members of the New Jersey marine science consortium, a number of very worthwhile projects have been carried out. One of the projects is really a project which is at the forefront of development of technology in marine research. That program is known as the LEO 15 project. LEO is an acronym which stands for Long-term Ecosystem Observatory, which is literally an observatory which is stationed several miles off the New Jersey coast in the Atlantic Ocean. And through fiberoptic connection to shore and satellite technology, the data in a real-time situation is collected and transported via fiberoptic and satellite technology to Rutgers University and directly there into schoolrooms and university rooms all across the country. So that on a real-time basis, people can have knowledge of, study, and make use of the data that is collected from the LEO observatory. It is a very worthwhile tool in helping us to understand on an ongoing basis what is happening in the ocean, on the ocean floor, relative to a variety of scientific issues that are important. In addition to that, we in New Jersey are studying fish recruitment in estuaries, which means essentially how do we enhance fisheries in the breeding grounds and the spawning grounds in our estuaries. We have a variety of projects with regard to water quality and the impacts of sediments in some of our estuarine areas such as Barnegat Bay. We are using a $600,000 sea grant each year to study and try and find the answers to oyster diseases and research in that area. We have a workshop ongoing with regard to environmental sustainability of the marine industry, the marina industry, which essentially is a program to enhance the understanding of environmental issues as they are affected by boaters in marinas and those issues. We also have an ongoing program in New Jersey on the industrial use of marina biotechnology products. In other words, how can we develop and use products which are friendly to the environment. So these programs which are of vital importance to the future use of the marine estuarine environment are of vital importance, and in each case they are carried out because the sea grant program provides the resources to do so. So I would like to ask that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, it would be nice to get a unanimous vote on this. I have heard no objections. In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me say that this is another example of a Committee on Resources bill emanating from the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, which enjoys the bipartisan nature of our good relationships with each other between Republicans and Democrats and Members of the House. So I ask for everyone to support this very, very worthwhile bill.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I have some additional time which I am not going to use; and with the permission of the Chair, I yield 4 minutes of my time to the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie] for the purposes of control, so that he can dispense it to Members on the other side.

Mr. SAXTON. I have no objection to that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers]. (Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the State of Washington, [Mrs. Linda Smith].

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kennedyville on Maryland's beautiful Eastern Shore [Mr. Gilchrest].

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf].

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Quinn], who is also the chairman of the Subcommittee on Benefits.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mobile, AL [Mr. Callahan], who also serves as the chairman of the powerful Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs and does such a wonderful job for us. (Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SAXTON. Well, Mr. Chairman, we wish the gentleman a happy, happy birthday, anyway. I would also like to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert] for his able assistance as a member of the Committee on Science during this process. H.R. 437 was reported to the Committee on Resources on March 12 and an amended version of the bill was reported by the Committee on Science, which I just mentioned, on April 22. The committees have subsequently reached agreement on a compromise text, which is the vehicle before the House today. The National Sea Grant College Program was established by Congress in 1966 to improve our Nation's marine resource conservation efforts, to better manage those resources, and to enhance their proper utilization. H.R. 437, the National Sea Grant College Program Reauthorization Act of 1997, authorizes funding for Sea Grant through fiscal year 2000; simplifies the definition of issues under Sea Grant's authority; clarifies the responsibilities of State and national programs; consolidates and clarifies the requirements for the designation of Sea Grant colleges and regional groups; repeals an international program that has never been funded; prohibits lobbying with Federal funds, and assures that Sea Grant research will be adequately peer reviewed. By enacting this legislation we will be sending a clear message supporting the conservation and research-based management of our marine and coastal resources. I urge all Members to support the bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 437, the bill just passed.