Jim Saxton

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to first commend the gentleman from New York [Mr. Paxon], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel], and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch] for bringing this matter to the floor. Mr. Chairman, as everyone has heard here today, it is not pleasant but it is not difficult to describe the actions of the Palestinian Authority and their policy, which is simply stated as: Death to those who would sell land to Jews and other Israelis. Unfortunately, there have been those of us who have stood in this well a year ago and 2 years ago and suggested that things were not as we all had hoped they would be with the peace process. This is perhaps the most dramatic action that has been taken that serves as an example, but only one of a number of examples, of the attitude of the leadership of the Palestinian Authority, of course, involving most directly Yasser Arafat. Over the last 2 years in particular, we have time and again called upon the Palestinian Authority to recognize the right of Israel to exist. But instead, we heard nothing. We also called, time and again, for the fulfillment of the promise that Yasser Arafat made in the Oslo Accords and in subsequent statements when he promised to condemn terrorism but never did. We also view a map of Palestine on Palestinian letterhead which includes the land of Israeli, and we have spoken out as forcefully as we could to suggest to the Palestinian Authority that it would be a good idea to remove that parcel of land that is known to the West and to the world as the State of Israeli from inclusion on their map, but it is still a part of their map. We have heard speeches aplenty from Yasser Arafat, one set of words in English and yet another set of words, quite different, in his native tongue. So when we began to hear in the media and hear other reports that there was a new Palestinian policy or a reawakened Palestinian policy of threatening to kill, in the beginning, those who sold land to Israelis, and particularly to Jews, and then later when we heard that in fact, Palestinians who carried out that act that we consider in a free society an act of daily commerce, without discrimination, in this country, at least, and in most of the Western world, and, in fact, in most of the world, about who can sell land to whom; when we saw that policy carried out at least on three occasions when Palestinians were, in fact, killed, exhibiting or carrying out their rightful act of commerce, selling land to others, it reminded, I guess, the Western world that perhaps those of us who have been talking about the recognition of Israel as was promised, who have been talking about the condemnation by the Palestinian Authority of terrorism, who have been talking about the use of the territory or the country of Israel included in the map of Palestine, and who have listened carefully in Arabic and in English to Yasser Arafat's speeches; in short, I think it would be good to say that if Yasser Arafat does change his actions, we are all for peace. But in light of the fact that Yasser Arafat has established a clear track record, the most dramatic part of which is killing his own people who sell land to Jews, it seems to me that it is incumbent upon us to follow the leadership of those who say that we should not support this type of a regime. The question to my fellow Members is simply this: What kind of regime are we supporting, with upward of $100 million a year in financial assistance? A regime that has this record, that has been spelled out clearly by other Members before me here today, including the Speaker. Is this regime going to uphold basic human rights or human law? Their record clearly, clearly suggests otherwise. Mr. Chairman, therefore I join with those who say today that it is time for us to take stock, review our policy on aid to the Palestinian Authority, and I urge all Members to vote in the affirmative on this amendment.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I introduced the Asian Elephant Conservation Act which would set up a special elephant fund for the Interior Department to administer and would authorize $5 million annually over the next 5 fiscal years to be spent on Asian elephant conservation. At an educational event held yesterday on the Capitol Grounds, I was able to share with other Members all the majesty and wonder of the Asian elephant. It was evident that these creatures are formidable, and one would think they are invincible. Sadly they are not. Indeed, the Asian elephant is in grave danger of extinction. And that is why the United States, as a world leader in conservation, must step forward and assist in Asian elephant conservation. Unlike the African elephant whose recent decline has been caused by the dramatic large-scale poaching for ivory, the Asian elephant is faced with more diffuse threats. The increasing pressures of human population growth, along with the necessary changes in land use, has caused habitat destruction that now has elephants and people in direct competition for resources. Because of incremental habitat loss and degradation, Asian elephant populations are highly fragmented. Drastic fragmentation has increased chances of extinction to each fragmented population. Our hope is that this bill will reverse this trend. For the record, I am including statements on the Asian elephant by Dr. Raman Sukumar, chairman of the IUCN/SSC Asian Elephant Specialist Group; Mr. Douglas H. Chadwick, a wildlife biologist, and author of ``The Fate of the Elephant``; Ms. Ginette Hemley, director of international wildlife policy for the World Wildlife Fund; Dr. Mary Pearl, executive director of the Wildlife Preservation Trust International, Inc.; Dr. Chris Wemmer, associate director for conservation and research at the Smithsonian Institution; and Ms. Shanthini Dawson, wildlife ecologist and steering committee member on the IUCN Species Survival Commission. The Asian Elephant--An Appeal To Save a Flagship in Distress (By Dr. Raman Sukumar--Chairman, IUCN/SSC Asian Elephant Specialist Group, and Author of ``Elephant Days & Nights,'' 1994) The Asian elephant has enjoyed an intimate relationship with people for over 4000 years. It has carried our heaviest burdens, and transported us across the widest rivers and over the steepest mountains. Kings have used the elephant as a machine of war and an ambassador of peace. It has been worshipped by Hindus in the form of Ganesha, the elephant- headed god, while the Buddha himself is considered to be the reincarnation of a sacred white elephant. No other relationship between man and beast equals the splendor of the elephant-human relationship. More important, the elephant is a keystone species across the tropical forests of South and Southeast Asia, arguably one of the biologically most diverse regions in the world. The elephant is thus the ultimate flagship for conserving the biodiversity of the Asian region. Yet, ironically the Asian elephant faces a crisis that is largely hidden from the international community. Its population in the wild is under 50,000 individuals, perhaps as few as 35,000, a level which is less than 10% of that of its more publicized African cousin. Its range once stretched widely from the Tigris-Euphrates basin in West Asia through the Indian sub-continent eastward up to the Yangtze River and beyond in China. Today, it has been wiped out entirely from West Asia and has virtually disappeared from China. In 13 Asian countries the elephant is found, with few exceptions, as a series of small populations, isolated from each other through habitat fragmentation or even low density. Fewer than 10 populations, 6 of them of India, have over 1000 elephants. The rest have much fewer numbers, often less than 100 or 50 individuals each. The reasons for the decline of this Asian giant are many. Historically, the elephant has been captured in large numbers for taming and use by man. During the past century alone up to 100,000 elephants have been captured in Asia. Most countries have stopped capturing elephants now, but some illegal capturing still continues in Southeast Asia. The most serious threat faced by the elephant is the loss of habitat through clearing of tropical forest for traditional and commercial agriculture, and developmental projects. Whether it be rubber and oil plantations in Malaysia and Indonesia, tea and coffee plantations in India, sugar cane in Sri Lanka or shifting agriculture in Indo-China, the result is practically the same--a loss of space for elephants. Added to this developmental projects--roads, railway lines, dams, mines, and industries--burgeoning across Asia threaten to further fragment the elephants' habitat. Elephant-human conflict is increasing in many regions. Crops are trampled and eaten by elephants, and several hundred people killed each year. The traditional tolerance of farmers towards the elephant is disappearing in a world undergoing a rapid socio- economic transformation. Equally alarming today is the wave of ivory poaching sweeping across Asia, to feed the demand from the rich East Asian countries. India has been hit hard by the lust for white gold, and so have many other countries. As the number of male elephants with tusks declines, the sex ratios become more unequal, genetic variation is lost, and the health of populations threatened. Seventeen years ago, I began my tryst with this magnificent animal, a symbol of what my country stands for and has to offer to the world. During this short time I have witnessed the elephant decline rapidly in Thailand and Indo-China, lose its traditional migratory routes in India, and killed for its ivory. I have also been privileged to watch the elephant lead its natural life, courting, giving birth, feeding, playing, bathing and enjoying life in general. This tryst with the elephant is a passion and an addiction, which one does not have to apologize for. Just as we cannot imagine an India without the Himalaya, the Ganges or the Taj Mahal, I cannot imagine an India without the elephant. I am sure that many from my neighboring Asian countries would feel the same about the elephant. I make this appeal to friends of the elephant in the United States to join hands with us to save one of the most magnificent of our fellow creatures on earth. Surely, the trumpet of the elephant should continue to echo through the hills and forests of Asia in the decades and centuries to come.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] has brought some questions to my attention which I would like to discuss with the chairman of the committee at this time. I have a few questions I would like to address to the chairman about the potential effects of the bill on the utility and other rights-of- way and related facilities within the Nation's wildlife refuges. Current law expressly allows such rights-of-way when they are determined to be compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established. In many cases electricity and other rights-of-way and related facilities provide additional valuable habitat for our Nation's wildlife. Current Fish and Wildlife Service regulations specify a 50-year permit term for rights-of-way for electrical transmission lines, recognizing that the siting process for such lines is lengthy, complex, and costly. H.R. 1420 requires that the Fish and Wildlife Service review the compatibility for all uses at least every 10 years. Does the gentleman envision this requirement as adversely impacting either existing rights-of-way or the Service's ability to grant future rights- of-way across the refuge?

Mr. SAXTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I neglected to mention the person who worked very closely with me over the past couple of years in preparing for today, and that, of course, is Sharon McKenna, one of the staffers on the Resources Committee who is here with me today. I just wanted to thank her so very much for all the hard work that she has done in preparation for today as well.

Mr. SAXTON. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1420, the bill known as the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues may know, when I held the first hearing on the first version of the bill before the Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans Subcommittee, it sparked a lively debate and was quite contentious. Nevertheless, all witnesses agreed that the problems of the refuge system needed to be addressed. When I suggested that the differing parties should work together to find a common solution, I would not have guessed that these discussions would culminate in legislation supported by such a diverse group of environmental and hunting organizations as we have found support this bill today. Today we have before us a bill that is supported by Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], chairman of the Resources Committee, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], the ranking member, the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie], the ranking member of the Fish, Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans Subcommittee, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Members of both sides of the aisle, and the administration. In my view, Mr. Speaker, this is exactly the kind of process that we ought to have in the House to solve problems that are unique and of importance to the American people and the habitat in which wildlife survives. This compromise legislation, which the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] has so eloquently described, contains a provision that I believe is the linchpin to continuing public support for the refuge system. As the law currently stands, as soon as refuge lands are acquired, the door to public use is immediately slammed shut. The many hunters, fishers, birders, and environmental groups that have been using the land for recreation and education have worked hard to preserve the land and then are prevented from further use. No sound conservation reason can explain this and prevent them from using it. I have urged for years that this action erodes public support and creates unnecessary ill feelings toward the refuge system and its managers. The bill eliminates this unnecessary situation. It will require the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to make a determination prior to land acquisition whether existing wildlife-dependent uses may continue during the implementation of a management plan. In other words, the door does not slam shut. By so doing, citizens will know up front whether their favorite fishing or hunting spots will remain open. And if they are unhappy with that decision or that proposal, they can lobby their congressional Representative prior to the acquisition of refuge lands. I believe that retaining some modicum of control will keep the public support of refuges high and decrease hard feelings between users and land managers. Mr. Speaker, during his opening statement, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] made reference to a number of groups that support this bill. I would like to add to that list the National Wildlife Federation, who say in the letter drafted and dated May 29, ``The negotiations by your staff,'' referring to the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], ``with the Clinton administration and Members of Congress have resulted in a carefully crafted proposal with broad support. We support H.R. 1420.'' That is the National Wildlife Federation. Mr. Speaker, this is not an all-encompassing bill. It is probably not perfect. Few things, if any, that we do here are. There are undoubtedly future changes that will be made to the management of the refuge system. This, however, is a huge step in the right direction. I again want to thank all the Members and staff, specifically Sharon McKean, Harry Burroughs, Chris Mann, Don Beattie, Dan Ashe and others, who worked so hard to bring this compromise legislation before the House. And I, of course, urge all Members to support it. Mr. Speaker, I include the following letter for the Record: National Wildlife Federation, Vienna, VA, May 29, 1997. Hon. Don Young, Chairman, House Resources Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Young: I am writing to thank you for your recent efforts on H.R. 1420, the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act of 1997. The National Wildlife Refuge System and its proper management have long been of special interest to the National Wildlife Federation (NWF). Your willingness to address many of the concerns we had with the original version of the bill, H.R. 511, is greatly appreciated. The negotiations by your staff with the Clinton Administration and Members of Congress have resulted in a carefully crafted proposal with broad support. We support H.R. 1420 provided that no weakening amendments are made to the bill as it moves through the legislative process. We appreciate and support your vigorous opposition to any such weakening amendments, as indicated by your staff (Harry Burroughs, conversation with Doug Inkley, May 29, 1997). We look forward to House approval of H.R. 1420 next week. Sincerely, Mark Van Putten, President.

Mr. SAXTON. I understand that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was consulted on this issue and agrees with the gentleman's assessment. Is that correct?

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, on June 7, 1997, the Beachwood Borough Volunteer Fire Company No. 1 will celebrate its 75th anniversary. Beachwood, NJ, established in 1917, is a sleepy hamlet located on the Toms River far removed from the hustle and bustle of the Jersey Shore tourist area. The residents of Beachwood have a long history of being friendly, open, and giving to those in need within their community. Nothing exemplifies this more than the volunteers who have given their time to help Beachwood fight fires within the town. Firefighters serve a unique and extremely important role in our society. Many of us take the duties performed by volunteer firefighters for granted. Each day, these individuals put their lives at risk in order to protect the public from tragedy. What is unique about volunteer firefighters is that they protect us without any financial compensation. Across the country, almost 90 percent of the firefighters are volunteers. These volunteers spend many hours away from their families and jobs in order to protect us and our families. They do not fight fires for financial rewards. They fight fires for the love of their community. It is for this reason, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the residents of Beachwood, I would like to thank the brave volunteers of the Beachwood Borough Volunteer Fire Company No. 1 for their service to their community and congratulate them on their 75th anniversary.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, one would hardly know what this bill was about listening to the debate. This rule is about a bill which has been long in coming. We have been working on this bill for 3 years, and it came as a result of a law actually that was passed in 1993, because in 1993, we recognized that we were killing too many dolphins in the eastern tropical Pacific by way of tuna fish fishermen. What was happening back then, Mr. Speaker, is very simply that the way of catching tuna was to find a school of dolphin and recognizing that tuna fish school up under dolphin, we would surround, or the fishermen would surround the dolphin with large nets called purse seine nets and scoop up the tuna fish along with the dolphins. We found that we were killing something in excess of 100,000 dolphins a year. That is what this issue is about. I find it regrettable that the other side has seen fit to take this time and steal it away from the environmental community who have been waiting for 3 years at least to discuss this issue today seriously and take the time and use it for something else. But the bill that is coming today I think is a very important one and it really has taken a long time to get here. What we will do today is to turn back the bill that was passed in 1993, which did in effect make American fishermen stop fishing on dolphins, as the terminology goes, stop fishing on dolphins so that we would not kill 100,000. And we have reduced the kill of dolphins to a very, very low level. Unfortunately, 12 other countries that fish in the same fishery chose not to abide by American law because they had other markets for the fish and they were off doing other things. So we set upon international negotiations through our State Department to bring an end to the international catch of dolphins. As we have proceeded, this bill will be the final chapter, we hope, in bringing about a resolution to that problem. Not only will we have an international agreement that solves the dolphin problem, we will also have an international agreement that provides for a habitat management plan in effect which preserves the lives of sea turtles, billfish, sharks and young juvenile, some people call them baby tuna fish, all of which are victims of the present regime of activities that goes on in this fishery which is a very, very bad management plan. So we have heard a lot of hyperbole today about what the other side would like us to hear about. It is no wonder, Mr. Speaker, it is no wonder the American people get confused. It is no wonder the American people get disgusted because we bring a rule to the floor that has to do with dolphins and tuna fish and sea turtles, and the other side sees fit to try to publicize and politicize the debate. I think it is most unfortunate, Mr. Speaker.

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 to include extraneous material on the bill just passed.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on one statement that my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] just made. He said, I believe he used these exact words, this bill will drive down environmental standards. Greenpeace does not think so. That is why they endorsed it. The World Wildlife Fund, the Center for Marine Conservation, the National Wildlife Federation, and the Environmental Defense Fund do not think it will drive down environmental standards either. They think it will help to save endangered species like the sea turtle because of our change in fishing methods mandated under the new bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of our time to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland, [Mr. Gilchrest].

Mr. SAXTON. And may I ask for the time remaining on each side?

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, is it not this Member's right to close the debate?

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, may I make a parliamentary inquiry at this point?

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to say that the gentleman from California just proved my point. He said that half of the international community is not complying. Those were his words. And this agreement brings them voluntarily into compliance.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the State of Florida [Mr. Deutsch] and if he would yield to me for a question, I would ask him this. We have a domestic law currently which regulates U.S. fishermen. There are 11 other countries in this fishery. What would the gentleman suggest that we do to domestic law to protect dolphins in the international fishery? We have tried to put in place this international agreement. What would the gentleman suggest if he is opposed to our effort?

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], who worked so hard on this bill.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair as to the time remaining on each side?

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, it is also true, is it not, that because of the observers on the boats that will be pursuant to the new law, that we have a realistic target of zero dolphins?

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

Mr. SAXTON. Our new system has a target of zero dolphin deaths?

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield to me, I want to emphasize the point the gentleman was making about dolphin-safe. People believe the label on the can actually means dolphin-safe. Is the gentleman aware that in 1993, 4,500 dolphins died as a result of the current practice in the eastern tropical Pacific, and between 9,000 and 13,000 dolphins died in the Sri Lanka fishery during the same year?