Jim Saxton

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to explain a bill that was introduced late yesterday afternoon, which already has almost 100 cosponsors. It is called the Children's Environmental Protection and Right to Know Act of 1997. One of the reasons this bill has been so successful already in attracting support is that we did not try to reinvent the wheel. We borrowed one idea from a law in California and another idea from a law in New Jersey. First, the California law provides further information about toxins present in children's consumer products and eventually in consumer products for adults, based on this very successful 10-year-old program and law in California. Second, we borrowed from New Jersey a bill which builds upon a very successful 10-year-old New Jersey law that expands the toxic release inventory to include a once a year accounting of toxic materials used and stored in industrial facilities. I would like this morning to invite and urge my fellow Members of Congress to support this legislation, and join the nearly 100 cosponsors that have already signed on.

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, I ask unanimous consent that it may be in order for the Speaker to declare a recess, subject to the call of the Chair, on Wednesday, May 21, 1997, for the purpose of receiving in this Chamber former Members of Congress.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, few issues are as important as those policies of the Federal Reserve that affect American money. Policies of the Federal Reserve can determine whether there is high inflation or low inflation. Those policies can determine as well whether we can influence interest rates both in the short as well as in the long term. Sound monetary policies can create a framework favorable to economic growth, while policies that permit inflation to take place undermine economic growth. We are all concerned about job creation. We are all concerned about good wages. And it is primary to the policies that come out of the Federal Reserve as to whether or not those issues are able to take place. Over the last few months I have released a number of studies on Federal Reserve policy in my capacity as chairman of the Joint Economic Committee. We call the committee the JEC. These studies explain the reasons why inflation or the lack of it, known as price stability, should remain as the central focus of Federal Reserve policy. According to this research, the Federal Reserve's anti-inflation policy has worked well over the last few years. However, more recently, I have had some disagreements with the Fed about price stability and how it should be implemented. Is inflation taking place? It does not look so. But our JEC research suggests that, if there is inflation, it should be visible in real terms, in price measures such as the Consumer Price Index, which indicate today no inflation or no appreciable inflation. It should also be evident in prices of raw materials like commodity prices. It should also be evident in the value of the dollar as opposed to the German mark or the Japanese yen. It does not seem like there is any inflation there. And it should be evident in bond yields. Now, according to these price measures, there is no real evidence of inflation to justify Federal Reserve increases in interest rates. Yet the Federal Reserve seems to view economic growth itself as potentially inflationary. Now, imagine that for a minute, economic growth as being bad because economic growth means inflation. I do not think that is true. Based on our research, in fact, the JEC has done, I have opposed the increase in interest rates announced by the Federal Open Market Committee of the Fed on March 25. According to price measures used by the Joint Economic Committee, there is no indication of inflation justifying this increase in interest rates. For the same reason, I do not think the evidence would support an increase in interest rates at the FOMC next Tuesday. In connection with this research, I have also suggested that more openness is needed with Fed policy. Why should we as members of the public be trying to guess about what they are going to do? It creates instability. It creates guessing. People should not have to make investments based on their best guess. They should do so for good sound reasons. Having to guess about Fed policy is not good for our economy. In conclusion, there is no substantial evidence of inflation to support Federal Reserve action to raise interest rates. I am extremely supportive of the objective of price stability. Nobody wants inflation. But I do not agree with those at the Fed who tend to view economic growth itself, economic growth itself as potentially inflationary. Furthermore, Federal Reserve efforts to be more open and transparent should be encouraged and continued.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, if I may reclaim my time for a moment, before I respond, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I think all of the Members in the Chamber to one extent or another believe in the provisions of the Endangered Species Act. Whether you think that it is exactly right or whether you think it is mostly right, most of us do agree that there is a need to protect certain species that are either threatened or endangered. The problem with the bill of the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger] is that those projects which it exempts tend to be where many endangered species live. That creates a very difficult situation for those of us who would like to maintain a balance in the endangered species area, simply because the exempted projects and the exempted parcels of land are the home for many of these species. So that makes it very difficult. I know my good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell], has some language which he will offer later in the form of an amendment which moves toward changing the situation somewhat. He adds the language that says that the exemption will be in effect where necessary to protect human life and to prevent the substantial risk of serious property damage. I wish I could support the Campbell amendment. However, by the very nature of the location of flood control projects, they are built to protect from the risk of substantial damage to property, life, and limb. And so I would suggest to my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell], that his language simply maintains the status quo as contained in the Herger bill and does not really have the effect that I know he intends it to have.

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

Mr. SAXTON. I contend, Mr. Chairman, that flood control projects are built only where there is a risk of significant loss of property, life, or limb. Therefore, the gentleman, by exempting only those projects which fall under that category, by nature of the definition exempts all of the projects that the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] exempts in his original bill.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, this is a difficult situation because I believe that the goals of the bipartisan coalition that supports the Boehlert amendment and the goals of the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell] and the goals of the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] are all the same. But what makes this difficult is that there are two approaches, one which is reasonable and can become law, and the other which is somewhat less reasonable and in my opinion cannot become law. Why is it that it cannot become law? It is really pretty simple if we know the process in Washington, DC. We have received, for example, strong vibes, strong statements from the administration that it will not become law with the Herger-Pombo language even as amended by the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell]. So this is an exercise in futility and in fact I will not yield at this time. And so why we would send a bill out of this House escapes any rational explanation that I can think of. Second, if we send this bill to the Senate, which I do not think we will do unamended, if we send this bill to the Senate, I know some Senators and I know Members of both parties in the other House that will not vote for the Pombo-Herger language either. And as we all know, the Senate requires 60 votes in order to get cloture and to come to a vote on final passage. I do not think there are anywhere near 60 votes in the other House for the Pombo-Herger language. And as a matter of fact, I can count votes pretty well in this House, too. And I do not think the Pombo-Herger language with the Campbell amendment is going to pass in this House either. So as the accusations have kind of flown back and forth between the bipartisan coalition and those who would like to have it the other way, I think everybody should keep in mind that we both have the same goal and that there is one proposal that can make it to meet that goal, and that happens to be embodied in the Boehlert amendment. Why can Pombo-Herger become law? Well, it is being advertised as a very narrow bill, which with regard to flood concerns, the bill basically makes significant changes in ESA in the areas under consideration, which are levees. I think it is important for us to recall that most endangered species live along waterways. And so the very critters that ESA tries to protect are being directly and adversely affected in large numbers by the Herger bill. The bill would exempt further from ESA consideration specifically from the requirements to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the takings prohibition any activities related to any existing flood control project. I must add at this point that I disagree with the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell], my friend. The reason we accepted his language is because we think it does not change the Pombo-Herger bill at all. The reason for that is that the language that the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell], my friend, has included is quite specific and is added to the language of the Pombo bill and the language that is added to talks about the routine operation, maintenance, rehabilitation, repair or replacement of Federal or non- Federal flood control projects. And here is the new language: where necessary to protect human life or to prevent the substantial risk of serious property damage. Why are levees built? Why do they exist in the first place? To protect human life or to prevent substantial property damage. So the language that was added to the Herger bill simply states again what the purpose of the levee system is and I do not think does anything to change the original intent at all and continues, therefore, to have the Herger language applied to the entire flood control system in our country as we know it. In addition to that, the law applies, the Herger language applies regardless of whether this is any conceivable threat to the public. This would prevent any project reviewed to prevent damage to existing listed species, and it would make it virtually impossible to protect new species.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, those are the basic reasons that Secretary Babbitt has indicated some disagreement with this bill. That is the basic reason that I think the President will veto the bill. Those are the basic reasons that I think the Senate will not pass the bill. And those are the basic reasons why I think the bill unamended by Boehlert will fail here today. Now, the Boehlert amendment, on the other hand, will be targeted at what Pombo and Herger claim correctly that their complaint is that ESA prevents vital repairs to levees and other flood control projects, and we agree. We think relief is needed. We believe that our amendment, therefore, will exempt the repair of flood control projects from the consultation requirements of ESA all across the country, not just in California. It applies to both disaster areas and to any place where a project poses an imminent threat to human life or property and, as I said, it applies nationwide. So this amendment, this bill as amended by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] can become law. It goes to accomplish the purposes of the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo]. I believe that we should vote for it on a bipartisan basis. I think we should get behind it wholeheartedly and pass this amendment so that we can have a bill that becomes law.

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

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that the gentleman's well- intended amendment changes the bill at all and, therefore, I believe the President's veto threat remains in effect.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, it is my opinion that the White House believes, as I do, that the well-intended language of the gentleman from California does not change the bill at all in terms of its practical application to the entire flood control system as we know it in this country and, therefore, it is my opinion, I have not talked to the White House about this, but it is my opinion that the veto threat remains.

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

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I would like to clear up one matter. Earlier in the debate when I was in the well, there was some question about the position of the White House. The gentleman from California just reiterated a position that I thought was valid, and that was that the White House, the President, would not sign the Pombo bill in its current form. I am also aware that calls have been made to the White House in the subsequent couple of hours. Would the gentleman bring us up to date on what he believes the position of the White House is?

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, we are down to the last few minutes of this debate on the Boehlert substitute. I think it is important to point out here that there are some things that we can get done today which will become law and there are some things that we ought not to get done today which frankly cannot become law. One of the things which cannot be done today is that we cannot make major changes to the Endangered Species Act because if we were to do so, we would have to have the cooperation of the administration, and the administration has clearly stated as late as the last couple of hours that the Pombo-Herger language is unacceptable and, therefore, it cannot become law. What can happen today is the adoption of this amendment, the Boehlert substitute, which can then become the base bill which can pass this House, which I believe can pass the Senate and which I believe can be signed into law, which will grant the constituents of the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger] and the folks from North and South Dakota and the other flood stricken areas the relief that they need in order to repair the flood control systems that have been damaged by the floods. Mr. Chairman, I just want to urge every Member to do what I have concluded is the right thing in order to pass this aid along, not in the form of money but the opportunity to get things done quickly and in a way that nobody seems to object to, particularly the administration whose cooperation we once again need. I commend the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] for his hard work, as well as the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo], who has a different approach, but I think that in the interest of moving the process forward and in the interest of getting the relief to the folks who need it the most, that there is only one answer and that answer is to vote ``yes'' on the Boehlert substitute.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, when I heard first about the Boskin Commission report, I said, ``Well, of course, if we are going to use the Consumer Price Index, the CPI, for a variety of things, it ought to be accurate. Of course, if we are going to use it to adjust entitlement benefits, it ought to be accurate. Of course, if we are going to use it to adjust from time on an annual basis the amount of taxes Americans pay, it ought to be accurate. Of course, if we are going to use CPI in the private sector to adjust leases and mortgages and things on a timely basis, it ought to be accurate.'' Actually, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has done a reasonable job over the years in changing it from time to time. Every decade or so, the Bureau of Labor Statistics looks at the market basket that they measure and tries to make adjustments. But it was as far back as 1938, when renowned authors started to write that it was a difficult task, at best, and an impossible one perhaps to come up with an annual CPI year after year after year that was always accurate. So, as we began to look at this issue and the issues that it affects, like taxes, like Social Security, and like in the private sector mortgages and leases, we stepped back and said to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, let us know how you can fix this because it would be a bad idea for Congress to make an arbitrary adjustment. Let me show what happens in just one example as it relates to Federal income taxes. In the IRS Code, there are a number of features, including the personal exemption, that is right, the personal exemption, which is indexed, the standard deduction, which is indexed, and marginal tax brackets, which are also indexed for inflation. They go up each year depending on the increase in the cost of living as measured by the Consumer Price Index. This chart shows the practical effect of an arbitrary 1.1 adjustment, as the Boskin Commission reported. In the early years, in 1997, it would be a relatively small adjustment, about something in the neighborhood of $5 billion in annual income to our Treasury. But as the years go by, that compounds because you build CPI on top of a CPI on top of a CPI; and, so, we would collect significantly more taxes each year until in the year 2008. Just 10 years from the inception, we would collect an additional $56.3 billion a year if we followed the recommendation of the Boskin Commission. So those of us who are here who want to vote for increased taxes, it would be a really good idea to vote for a 1.1 reduction in the CPI. I know some of my colleagues are tired of me saying this because over the last couple of weeks we have had this budget proposal which we have been talking about; and, yes, part of it was an adjustment in CPI. So anybody who had voted for that, thankfully, has been taken out, anybody who had voted for that would have voted for a substantial increase in income taxes. This chart shows what it means on the individual level, again starting with a relatively small increase on an individual basis, but by the year 2008, a family with two taxpayers would be paying an extra $405 annually in taxes because of the adjustment in the CPI. This just gives an idea of how this compounds. So when you say to your Social Security beneficiaries back home we ought to have accurate numbers in the CPI because when we measure price stability we should be accurate, just understand how this compounds over the years, what it means in terms of additional taxes that Americans pay, and what it means in terms of fewer benefits Social Security beneficiaries will receive. I again thank the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder] for yielding this time, and I commend him and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] and others who have been involved in this effort for bringing this resolution to our attention and the floor.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, we could certainly call on them for their cooperation.

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

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to thank the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie] for the bipartisanship with which we have been able to handle these two bills and the staff on both sides. I might say, Mr. Speaker, it appears to me like we are moving rapidly towards some other bipartisan agreements on some other bills that have to do with wildlife management on the domestic side.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of this bill. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 39 was introduced by our full committee chairman, the gentleman from Alaska, Don Young, and was cosponsored by our distinguished Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia, Newt Gingrich. The fundamental goal of H.R. 39 is quite simple: It is simply to extend the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to allocate Federal money from the African elephant conservation fund until September 30, 2002. At our subcommittee hearing in March we heard from witnesses regarding the various grant projects their organizations have sponsored to assist in the conservation of the African elephant. The results of these projects were discussed, and how additional funds authorized by H.R. 39 would be spent in the future. H.R. 39, I believe, Mr. Speaker, is noncontroversial. It is a conservation measure. It will help to save the flagship species of the African Continent. I ask all Members to join in supporting the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 39, the bill just passed.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the scheduling of House Concurrent Resolution 8, the coral reef protection resolution of 1997, for consideration this afternoon. Mr. Speaker, with the able help of my comrade in arms, the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie], I introduced this resolution in early January. Mr. Speaker, in addition to their colorful beauty and ecological significance, healthy coral reefs provide numerous economic benefits to the United States and our territories. They support commercial and recreational fisheries, they are tourist attractions; they provide us with biomedicines and serve as natural protection for our coastlines. However, coral reefs are in a state of decline, not only in United States waters but worldwide. Without proper understanding of what is causing this degradation, it is difficult to determine how best to combat or reverse it. To this end, House Concurrent Resolution 8 makes a clear and forceful statement in support of further research, monitoring, and education with regard to coral reefs. It also encourages cooperation and coordination among U.S. agencies, academic institutions, nongovernmental organizations and industry that are involved in research on reef management and conservation activities. Finally, this legislation honors the fact that in 1997, it has been declared the Year of the International Reef by a global community of coral reef scientists, conservationists, and natural resource managers. Through the successful passage of this resolution, Congress will join this effort in promoting understanding and awareness of coral reef ecosystems. Congressional support for this resolution is bipartisan, coming from 40 Members who represent both coastal and noncoastal districts. Along with other positive environmental legislation that will be considered by Congress this year, this deserves our favorable consideration. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. (Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SAXTON. 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. 8) expressing the sense of Congress with respect to the significance of maintaining the health and stability of coral reef ecosystems, as amended.