Jim Saxton

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. The gentleman will be interested to know that we just held the second in a series of five hearings that had to do with how we were funding our wildlife refuge system. And we could use some help, I might say, from the Committee on the Budget with regard to some of those issues.

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 pass the bill (H.R. 39) to reauthorize the African Elephant Conservation Act.

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 include extraneous matter on the concurrent resolution just agreed to.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot said here today, but when the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], came to the well and spoke about freedom, it really did ring a bell that I think rings very true. Our country was founded 220 years ago, and it was the anticipation of the Founding Fathers that we would have a relatively small and inexpensive Government that was initially funded by tariffs. And as a matter of fact, there was not an income tax until I believe it was 1922 or right thereabouts. And so, over the years, as it became necessary in the judgment of Members that served in this House and the other body to take on more responsibility, it became necessary to find more funding to do that. And with each additional percentage that we asked the American people to send here, they lost part of their economic freedom. Imagine going from a brand new country with no taxes, no domestic taxes, to a country today where Government consumes very close to 40 percent of our GDP. Forty percent of what the American people earn is sent to Washington, DC, and the State governments and the local governments around the country. So today they have only 60 percent of their income to dispose of, where the freedom that they had in terms of the economies of families and how they spent their money, the freedom they had was 100 percent. Today, the American people have a diminished economic freedom that amounts to 60 percent on average of what they earn. Freedom is very important to us. Economic freedom is very important to us. I think, to Members of both sides of the aisle, we all agree on that. Yet in 1990 we voted for a big tax increase; I did not, but the majority here did. In 1993, Mr. Speaker, we voted for another big tax increase, and in both cases we eroded the economic freedom of the American people. I happen to be an active member, in fact the chairman of the Joint Economic Committee. Our function, as my colleagues know, is not to handle legislation but to study what we do here to see what kind of an effect it has on the American economy and the American family and the American people and the freedom they have in an economic sense to progress and work hard and to have their families get ahead. One of the studies we did shows clearly that, once the Federal Government begins to consume more than about 18 percent of GDP, it begins to act as a wet blanket on the economy generally. So there are fewer jobs, pay scales get stagnated as they are today when wages are not going up, and so once again we find that we lose the economic freedom when the Government gets too big and too expensive, when today we consume a full 23 percent of gross domestic product, instead of the 18 percent which many of us think is about the optimum level, a full 5 percentage points above what we ought to. Now, what this amendment to the Constitution is about is to preserve the economic freedom that the American people deserve and expect and work hard to achieve. Yes, we can make a decision here collectively about how to spend their money. But they would much rather make decisions within their family structures or as individuals about how they spend their money, how we spend our money back home. So I think it is incumbent upon us to recognize these basic, very basic elements of freedom as they apply to our economy and our work force and all of the things to go with it. One of my good friends just a few minutes ago talked about 7 percent of the people of the country, and I am not quite sure how that works out, but 7 percent of the people making decisions for the rest of us or keeping us from doing the things that we might, 93 percent of us presumably want to do. I would suggest this amendment goes in just the opposite direction because all it does, Mr. Speaker, is to set the stage for a national debate that will take place in the States. All 50 States have the opportunity to debate what our rules here should be by which we enact economic freedom legislation or the lack thereof.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Senate Concurrent Resolution 14, 105th Congress, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I would join with my friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel], and the chairman of the Committee on International Relations in condemning this. Frankly, I have 5 minutes of my own time set aside here a little bit later, so I will curtail my remarks at this time so that Mr. Gilman may be able to make his. But I just think this is a very, very serious situation, one that is overlooked all too often by us in this country, and I will withhold the rest of my remarks for a few minutes until I get to my time.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, recall with me for just a moment where you were and where all of our friends were on the day the World Trade Center was bombed and think back for a minute about how that made us feel. It is within that kind of a context that I viewed an occurrence earlier today when I heard that a bomb had been exploded in Tel Aviv by a suicide bomber. I immediately picked up the telephone and called a friend that lives in Tel Aviv with her husband, an elderly, older couple, and she described to me over the telephone what a friend of hers, an eyewitness to this bombing, saw. It seems that it was lunchtime and the waiter, who was the one who described this, saw a man who looked like he did not belong there enter the streetside cafe with two bags. As the waiter approached the individual to find out why he was there, he simply sat a bag on the chair, which caused the bag to explode. Forty-seven people were wounded and 3 were killed by this fanatic who caused this to happen. The Associated Press writes an account of what it was like. The Associated Press writes: The blast scattered chairs, tables and umbrellas on a tree- lined boulevard just yards away from City Hall. Smoke rose from the charred wood and cloth umbrellas, and napkins and half-eaten plates of food were strewn about. Among the injured was a 6-month-old girl in a red and blue clown costume. Her head was matted with blood as she was carried away screaming. There was a powerful boom, glass flying everywhere, and there was a lot of blood, said the cafe's shift manager who gave his name as Roi. He sobbed hysterically, sitting back on the sidewalk holding his head. This happened today. This happened in a cafe that I have visited. This happened within 2 blocks of my friends' home, and it causes us as Americans to wonder why. Well, one does not have to look far to find out why, because, as the Speaker knows, during Desert Shield and Desert Storm the West proved to those countries that would sponsor these kinds of acts that in order for them to carry out their desired, or to attain their desired goals, they are going to have to find some way to do it other than through conventional military means, and terror is one of the tools they use. What I described is terror. What is in this AP article is something that we as Americans find hard to believe and can only imagine. And yet in that part of the world, this is an all too often occurrence. As we look to see why the same AP article quotes some individuals who may have had something to do with this. If I can quote an Hamas leader, Ibrahim Maqadmeh, ``Jerusalem will not be restored by negotiations, but only with holy war, whatever the sacrifices,'' he said today, he told a crowd of 50,000 cheering people in Khan Unis in the Gaza Strip. In the West Bank town of Nablus, a different Hamas leader told the crowd of 10,000 supporters this afternoon, today, ``I have good news for you,'' he said. ``There is a suicide operation in Tel Aviv'' today. The crowd clapped and cheered. God is great. This is the only language that the occupiers, meaning the Israelis, the occupiers, this is the only language the occupiers understand, the language of martyrdom, said the Hamas leader Hamed Bitawi. These are difficult situations to talk about and, for me, quite impossible to understand, and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the American people and particularly the administration will take note of this event.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to recognize the accomplishments of an exceptional American youth, Mr. Brian Hauck. Mr. Hauck is the 1996-97 Department of Europe winner of the Voice of Democracy broadcasting scriptwriting contest ``Democracy-Above and Beyond'' sponsored by the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and its Ladies Auxiliary. The value of monetary scholarships, bonds, and awards this program awarded was over $2.7 million this past year. Brian plans to use his scholarship money to attend Washington University in St. Louis this fall where he hopes to pursue a curriculum that will assist him in becoming an astronaut. Brian is currently the president of both the Student Council and the Future Business Leaders of America at the Patch American High School. The son of Colonel and Mrs. John D. Hauck, Jr., Brian resides in Germany where his father is currently assigned to Headquarters United States European Command. I am sure that his parents are extremely proud of the achievement of their fine son. I wish to have Brian's award winning essay entered in the Congressional Record for all Americans to read. Freedom to succeed. Democracy is a government of the brave. As Americans, we are keepers of an institution that allows its people both success and failure. The strength of America is in the willingness of its citizens to take risks. From the earliest explorers to the modern businessman, the pioneering spirit has been the most important factor in the development of democracy and the key to America's position as a world leader. Discovered by a man who had invested his entire fortune on a voyage to prove the world was round, America has always been a land of hope where dreams are fulfilled. She was first colonized by people seeking freedom from religious oppression in Europe. These settlers abandoned everything in the hope of finding a better life in a land halfway around the world. A century later, their ancestors faced tyranny from the rule of the British Monarchy. True to their blood, they declared independence and fought for freedom. Their reward was the opportunity to create the United States of America. It is no wonder that the government created by these brave men granted freedom from oppressive government and control over their own lives. This same spirit of democracy and risk was still evident sixty years later as thousands of wagon trains headed west. Across the Great Plains and through the Rocky Mountains, pioneers battled disease, cold, and hunger to find a new life in the West. These people desired to migrate. They were not forced out by any tyrant, and they were not looking for an easy living. Even while knowing those hardships they would encounter, they trekked onwards, craving the opportunity to succeed or fail as fate willed. As America raced against the Soviet Union to put a man on the moon, the true nature of our democracy of risk became apparent. Unlike our Communist competitors, every astronaut involved in the Apollo program had volunteered. They desired the glory of setting foot upon the moon first, but such an opportunity would never have been surfaced within the structure of democracy. This spirit of exploration lives on as we continue our research in space and our expeditions to all corners of the globe. As a country, we must never forget our pioneering history. 220 years since the birth of this great nation, our society continues to respect the right of the individual to take risks. Ideas are only as valuable as the actions taken to bring them to life. When an American starts a company, he understands that it may fail, and that he may lose his entire fortune, or he may become the next multimillionaire. Whatever the outcome, he can take pride that he has the opportunity to try. Millions of people live under governments opposed to innovation. The willingness of the average American to take a chance is what has made the United States a prosperous and powerful country, and the freedom of the individual to succeed or fail helps to make American democracy the best form of government in the world.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to express my strong opposition to hasty action on the issue of revising the Consumer Price Index to adjust Federal income tax and benefit programs. Congress should closely examine the technical issues involving the Consumer Price Index until it has all the information needed to make policy changes in this area. A trillion dollars in tax increases and benefit restraints in programs like Social Security would affect too many millions of people to make decisions on the basis of incomplete information. After all, it took a panel of five professional economists 2 years to sort out these issues in producing a report, which is known as the Boskin report, which came out last December. Members of Congress need to carefully consider the main issues in this report and judge for themselves whether its recommendations for congressional action are warranted or not. The Consumer Price Index is produced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the same agency that generates employment and unemployment figures. The CPI is a fairly old statistic, and a committee headed by George Stigler reported to the JEC in 1961 its finding on issues related to this index involving product substitution, product quality changes, updating market baskets, treatment of new products, and a number of other issues. More recently, the Boskin Commission report reviewed many of these same issues, and this report has sparked considerable controversy. I think it is fair to say that although there is consensus that the CPI may be overstating inflation, the extent of the overstatement is very debatable and questionable. It is also worthwhile to note that Congress, rightly or wrongly, choose to index a variety of Federal benefits and tax provisions after the Stigler committee issued its report in 1961. There would seem to be ample reason for Congress to examine these issues carefully before making hasty policy decisions. Now, as I have pointed out, the policy decisions made regarding the CPI would affect millions of Americans. According to a recent Joint Economic Committee analysis, about 40 percent of the direct effects of legislative reductions to the CPI would comprise tax increases. That is, taxes would go up if the CPI is adjusted downward, and that would of course be primarily on middle class taxpayers, with tax increases averaging over $400 per year by the year 2008, and the remainder of the adjustments would fall on entitlement beneficiaries like Social Security recipients who would get lower annual cost-of- living adjustments. Congress should consider whether this mix of policy for deficit reduction achieves the desired results in the best way. To date, the debate has been framed by the Boskin Commission report, but additional information and analysis is needed for balanced decisionmaking on this complicated issue. For this reason I have requested an indepth Bureau of Labor Statistics study of the technical issues raised by the Boskin Commission. It is my hope that the BLS will complete its investigation and report this summer. In fairness to the many millions of Americans that could be affected by these policy changes, I would hope that Congress would receive and digest the forthcoming BLS study before hasty actions are taken. Though the BLS is certainly not above criticism and perhaps should have acted more strongly in this area heretofore, more than one perspective is needed, and the BLS can provide that perspective for sound policymaking with respect to the CPI. Mr. Speaker, the American people have seen enough tax increases, and they are entitled to know that Social Security cost-of-living adjustments will be safe. They do not need these programs tampered with through the back-door adjustment of the CPI.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. If the gentleman will yield on the one point that he made on his mention of taxes, I think it is very important to point this out, and I think the gentleman is right on, relative to this issue, when we talk about balancing the budget. There are undoubtedly some in this Chamber, as apparently the President is, apparently at least partly in favor of tax increases to try to move toward a balanced budget. I think it is a very foolish course to follow, because history shows that every time Congress has increased taxes, Congress has also seen fit to increase spending by $1.59 for every dollar we have increased taxes. So in spite of the fact that we had tax increases in 1990 and tax increases in 1993, in both cases, in a stated attempt to balance the budget, in both cases the deficit got worse. There are reasons for that that I will not go into, but they had to do with the way the economy performs when we raise taxes and the way it performs in a positive way when taxes are reduced. I happen to favor a version of the balanced budget amendment which creates a supermajority provision to raise taxes. In other words, if we as an institution decide that it might be a good idea to raise taxes instead of cutting spending to balance the budget, then we ought to do it, in my view, with a supermajority two-thirds vote. It makes imminently common sense to me, because history has shown that over and over and over again, this institution and the President have chosen to try to control the deficit by increasing taxes. It has not worked. We need to recognize that. The supermajority provision in the balanced budget amendment seems to me to be one safeguard against the Congress falling into that trap yet again.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. First let me commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht] for sponsoring this discussion tonight. If I may just ask the gentleman's explanation of deficit in the Clinton budget. The gentleman mentioned the scoring that takes place by two different agencies, the CBO and OMB. In spite of the fact that they do different scoring, they both agree, do they not, that the deficit goes up initially and then falls ever so slightly during the 1998-99 time frame, and then during the last 2 years of the 5-year plan, the President's 5-year plan, the deficit reduction that takes place is about 70 percent of the total deficit reduction that takes place during the whole plan. So we are essentially, under this proposal, pushing most of the deficit reduction off until after the year 2000, when we then promise the American people we will get to it. Is that fair to say under both sets of scoring?

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, it just seems to me, and this chart points it out even more clearly, I said that 70 percent of the reduction takes place in the last weeks of the last 2 years, and my colleague is saying that virtually all of the deficit reduction under the President's plan, 98 percent, takes place during the last 2 years. It would seem to me that, if we are going to be serious about deficit reduction and getting to a balanced budget, that we ought to start in earnest right away to make a serious step down of the deficit to take place beginning in 1998 and not waiting until the year 2000. Would my colleague agree with that analysis?

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding on this point. I think it is a very important one. Obviously, a good part of what has caused the economic growth to take place, this growth period started in 1991 incidentally, the last quarter of 1991, the growth that has taken place has been encouraged to a large degree by the Fed holding down short-term interest rates. And I think it is very important to recognize that that is one of the factors that has caused the economic growth that we have sustained through that period of time to take place. It has been dampened somewhat, however, and I think most economists will agree that the tax increases that occurred in 1990 and 1993 had just the opposite effect. While the Fed was trying to hold down short- term rates to cause growth in the economy, at the same time Congress put a damper or a wet blanket on economic growth and caused what I see as moderate, at best, economic growth taking place. If we had not had the tax increases on the other hand and if the economy had performed in a more robust way, while interest rates were low, we certainly would have had more job opportunities. We would have had higher wages, in my opinion, and certainly a higher rate of growth in the economy generally. So interest rates have played a very, very key role in this entire scenario. Aside from the Fed controlling to some degree short-term rates, long- term rates are controlled to a large extent by investor expectation. If investors expect that inflation will be low and if investors expect that we are going to do our job and stop borrowing on the Federal level to the extent that we have and then they will expect that credit will loosen, then that expectation causes long-term rates to come down as well, which is all certainly very, very positive for job growth, growth in wages and growth in the economy generally. Our job here is to be partners with the Fed and the Fed has done its job extremely well in controlling short-term rates. Our job is to help control long-term rates by doing the responsible thing and moving in a steady decline in terms of deficit spending to the point where we actually have a balanced budget and every American family will benefit through a program like that, particularly when it comes, as you correctly point out, Mr. Gutknecht, to interest rates coming down.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a point here. I think this is very important, because I would not want any of our colleagues or anybody who might be listening to this discussion to get the notion that we stand here talking about this ready to dismantle on a large scale Federal programs that are important to people. Two years ago, we began to slow the growth of some programs, which is what we still think we need to do in order to accomplish the objectives that we are talking about here tonight. We suggested, for example, that the School Lunch Program that was growing at a rate in excess of 10 percent, seems to me it was growing at something like 11.5 percent, every year we were spending 11.5 percent more than we had spent the year before, and we suggested that one way to begin to get a handle on the huge increases that we had seen in Federal spending that was driving this deficit and national debt problem would be to slow that growth rate down from about 11.5 percent, I think it was to about 7 percent. And we suggested similar kinds of things in many programs that had been growing at very high rates across the board. At the same time, during all those years, in real terms, we were reducing defense spending. So we had a disproportionate increase in some programs and no growth at all in other programs. And what we said was, what we say today is that if we can continue to hold down those programs that are currently held down and begin to get a handle on the large increases in the programs that are growing too fast, that we can maintain the services to the American people in a very similar mode that we are today and that we have over the past several years, but they just will not grow as fast. And so I think that is an important part of the discussion as well. There is one other point that I would like to make. I do not want to confuse the discussion about how important it is, for all the economic reasons and all the reasons that had to do with families, that we balance the budget. But there is one idea that is floating around here that I think we ought to be very cautious with, and that is that recently a commission gave a report on the Consumer Price Index. And the report suggested that the Consumer Price Index is not accurate, that it overstates the rate of inflation. And I think it is very important to understand that, yes, while we want accurate data in terms of the Consumer Price Index, that the CPI is used in our tax code to determine how much taxes people pay from year to year. The brackets in the marginal rate structure of our Internal Revenue Code actually are indexed to go up with inflation. And if we rush out without having all the information that we can possibly get and arbitrarily legislate a change in the Consumer Price Index, it will mean a tax increase that a JEC study recently pointed out that at the end of a 12-year period will be an additional $405 a year that the average taxpayer will pay in taxes, a very significant tax increase. So while we want to balance the budget, we do not want to look for the oversimplified ways to do it which means slashing programs that are going to hurt people or finding a gimmicky thing like adjusting the Consumer Price Index. Because an adjustment downward in the Consumer Price Index of 1.1 percent, as the Boskin Commission suggested, means at the end of 12 years every American taxpayer will be paying an additional $405 every year in taxes.

Mr. SAXTON. Well, today, the economy is growing at a little over 2 percent. Some quarters had been better. I think we had 3.9 percent growth in the last quarter of, I guess it was the last quarter of last year. But overall, the economy has grown since 1990, the last quarter of 1991 by a little over 2 percent. Now, the average growth since World War II has been over 3 percent. That is 1 percentage point, but it makes a big difference, because while 1 percentage point, when we are talking 2 or 3 percent, is like 50 percent faster at 3 percent than at 2 percent. So it is very important to realize that for some reason all of us agree that the economy is not performing as well as we would like it to. We would like it to be growing at least at the historic average since World War II, which is over 3 percent and it is growing at 2. So when we begin to look at why that could be, one of the unmistakable conclusions we have to come to is we had the biggest tax increase in 1990, followed by an even bigger one in 1993. That, to me, seems to be what we did differently. And therefore this recovery, which I believe is part of the normal economic cycle, we are now in a growth period, this growth period is slower than I believe any other growth period since World War II. I personally believe that it is because of the two tax increases, the gentleman correctly points out, and certainly has had an effect on our economy.

Mr. SAXTON. As a matter of fact, if the gentleman will continue to yield on that point, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which has the responsibility, along with calculating employment and unemployment figures, also is responsible for managing the Consumer Price Index process and the formula through which they measure the rate of increase in prices or price stability. The Bureau of Labor Statistics I have asked to report back to us by this summer on the structural makeup of the Consumer Price Index process and to make recommendations as to how the situation might be managed without legislating an arbitrary reduction which I think would be a mistake. I think your point is absolutely correct. There are people who eat and live and breathe issues that have to do with statistical analysis and how to measure the basket of goods that the Consumer Price Index measures. Our leadership is incidentally making a lot of these same points. So I am very pleased about that and hope that we will show some restraint and not look at this as an easy fix to move toward a balanced budget because I am not so sure it gets us there.

Mr. SAXTON. If I may, I want to commend the gentleman from Georgia for the very articulate analysis or statement on behalf of what this will do for the American family. One thing I am sure he did not mean to do, but he left out something, which is also important that causes economic growth to take place, is some of that money on the street will get saved, put into a savings account or go into a mutual fund, which creates a supply of savings which others can borrow to increase the size of their business and hire more people. That is what creates the business cycle, when economic activities take place. Whether we believe it is the supply that creates the better economy or the demand, either way, by the inefficient Federal Government consuming less of GDP and people who are out working in the private sector consuming more of GDP, it makes the economy better when the efficient part of our economy handles the money rather than the inefficient part. So I wanted to say that I think that the gentleman's statement on behalf of the average American worker is very well placed.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a man who has committed a lifetime to law and order in the United States. On March 1, 1997, Mr. Roy D. Nedrow will retire as the Director of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, ending 33 years of law enforcement service to the community at the local and Federal level. Mr. Nedrow began his law enforcement career in 1964 with the Berkeley, CA Police Department where he served for 6 years, first as a patrolman and later as a training sergeant and detective. In 1970, Mr. Nedrow was appointed a special agent with the U.S. Secret Service, distinguishing himself during assignments in the field and at the Service's headquarters. As a result of his outstanding performance and talents, Mr. Nedrow earned a number of promotions culminating in his appointment to the senior executive service and assignment as the Secret Service's Deputy Assistant Director for the Office of Investigations. As director, he oversaw all investigations and protective support activities conducted by the Service's 1,200 special agents at its more than 100 field locations. In 1992, Mr. Nedrow retired from the Secret Service to accept appointment as the first civilian Director of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service [NCIS]. His appointment came at a critical time in the Agency's history. His strong leadership and unquestionable integrity restored stability to an agency which needed greater independence and a change of direction. Assembling a team of highly qualified professionals, Director Nedrow overhauled the Service, reorganizing its bureaucracy and providing greater accountability and responsiveness to its customers. He provided the men and women of NCIS with a new vision, the necessary resources and support, and the inspiration to achieve positive change. Under Director Nedrow's leadership, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service gained national recognition for its innovation in homicide investigation. The Service's approach to the investigation of previously unresolved or cold case homicides was lauded for its innovation and excellence in October 1996 by the International Chiefs of Police [IACP] during its prestigious Webber Seavey Award for Quality in Law Enforcement Ceremony. The NCIS cold case methodology has since been adopted by numerous law enforcement agencies throughout the United States. Director Nedrow also recognized the problems and anxieties endured by families of deceased servicemembers whose deaths occurred under other than natural circumstances. He created and championed an NCIS Family Liaison Program to assure responsiveness to the needs of, and issues raised by, surviving family members during the death investigation process. Director Nedrow's legacy of achievements include his establishment of a proven, money-saving alternative dispute resolution personnel program, and a cutting edge and visionary computer crimes investigation group. Perhaps most impressive of all, Director Nedrow and the dedicated men and women of NCIS have done what very few Federal agencies can claim to have done--they have recovered more taxpayer dollars to the U.S. Treasury than it costs to run the entire agency! From 1993, Director Nedrow's first year at the helm of NCIS, to the end of fiscal year 1996, NCIS procurement fraud special agents investigated 2,355 cases of fraud against the Government, obtained 658 felony indictments, achieved 493 convictions, and recovered over $975.8 million in fraudulent payments, fines, and restitution. This is a remarkable achievement! This small, elite agency of only 885 special agents, only 114 of whom are procurement fraud specialists assigned to Navy and Marine Corps bases around the world, have proven that while crime doesn't pay, crime fighting does! Although we are losing the leadership and talents of Director Nedrow to a well-earned retirement on March 1, he leaves behind a team of tenacious investigators working hard to keep our Armed Forces safe and ready. The NCIS team he leaves behind is a lasting tribute--I can think of no finer tribute--to a great leader and a great American. In 1945, renowned journalist Walter Lippman wrote, ``The final test of a leader is that he leaves behind him in other men the conviction and the will to carry on.'' Roy Nedrow has more than met the test. The Naval Criminal Investigative Service is indeed a better agency today than it was when he took over the reins. Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend Roy Nedrow for his outstanding leadership and life-long service to our country. I offer him my personal thanks and the thanks of an appreciative nation as he begins a new chapter in his life.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce that on Thursday I will introduce a bill designated to increase incentives to save and invest for middle class taxpayers. The bill, known as the Investment Revitalization Act, or the IRA, of 1997, would greatly increase the deduction ceilings for IRA contributions, increase the income caps which currently prevent many middle class taxpayers from using IRA's and expand opportunities for penalty free withdrawals from IRA accounts. By increasing the incentives to save, this legislation would boost long term economic growth and help middle class taxpayers help themselves in addressing a wide variety of economic contingencies that might otherwise lead to expanded government activity. For many years policymakers from across the spectrum have complained about inadequate levels of personal savings and investment. There have also been concerns expressed about the economic vulnerability of families to unemployment and other setbacks, the exposure of families to medical and other emergencies, the great difficulty in coping with increased education costs, the heavier family tax burdens over the last three decades, and the looming problems associated with the retirement of the baby boom generation. Most of these problems are related to the fact that our income tax is systematically biased against personal savings and this makes it much harder for families to accumulate resources to successfully address their needs as they arise. The IRA bill which I will introduce on Thursday will go a long way toward removing the bias against savings and investment in the current Tax Code. This bill is intended to suggest a new direction and to guide tax policy into the next century. The basic idea is to expand IRA's enough to strip away much of the multiple taxation of personal savings and investment in the United States for the vast majority, particularly of middle class taxpayers. The flexibility of this approach would give families the financial ability to successfully address their needs as they see fit. This IRA bill increases the current $2,000 IRA deduction ceiling by $500 every year for 10 years. At the end of this period, the deduction cap would be $7,000 each year. Second, the bill would increase the income ceiling $10,000 each year for 6 years so that taxpayers filing joint returns up to $110,000 of adjusted gross income could take advantage of IRA deductions. Third and finally, the penalty free withdrawals would be permitted for medical care, education, employment, and for first-time homeownership. When a career setback or unexpected medical problem occurs, they would have the sufficient assets to fall back on. Some would save aggressively for children's college education, expenses or some other reason, attracted by the deduction, but also knowing that earnings compound even faster without a tax bite. Others might solely focus on retirement. In my view, the adoption of this legislation would largely reverse the current discrimination against personal savings and investment, thus boosting long-term economic growth. The economic benefits of this concept would be significant. Government policy has undermined middle class savings incentives for too long. If we are concerned about inadequate personal savings and related problems, it is time for U.S. tax policy to become less counterproductive. We cannot maintain a Tax Code that systematically discriminates against personal savings and investment and then be surprised when people fail to save, creating serious problems for public policy. A fundamentally different approach to the tax treatment of personal savings is urgently needed. Let us reduce the multiple taxation on middle class savings.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor for me to pay tribute to Lt. Col. Jon T. Andre who, on January 31, 1997, retired from the U.S. Air Force after more than 24 years of dedicated service. During his distinguished career, Colonel Andre has served his country, the U.S. Air Force, and the community of McGuire Air Force Base with distinction and honor. Over the past 6\1/2\ years, Colonel Andre served at McGuire AFB in New Jersey. It has been during this period that I have gotten to personally know and appreciate Jon's professional integrity and always positive outlook. In 1993, Jon was assigned as McGuire's principal liaison officer during the emotional and often contentious base closure and realignment process. Jon excelled under an extremely delicate and difficult situation, deftly handling the demands placed on him by both Air Force Headquarters and the local community which sought to retain McGuire AFB. His earnest, forthright approach earned him praise by all who came in contact with Jon during this period. A native of Ludlow, MA, Colonel Andre entered the Air Force following his graduation from Holy Cross College in 1972. Although initially trained as an air weapons controller, Jon sought early in his career to work with people and improve the personal and professional relationships within the Air Force. Throughout his career, Colonel Andre has been involved with human relations and equal opportunity programs, gaining ever more responsibility and recognition with each promotion. By all accounts, Colonel Andre's involvement with personal development-personal relations programs was a perfect match. He repeatedly distinguished himself in this field, earning both individual as well as group honors. Specifically, Jon's accomplishments include having his office selected as the Tactical Air Command's Best Social Actions Programs for 2 consecutive years while assigned at Luke Air Force Base; selected as Instructor of the Year while serving as a weapons control instructor; and having his office recognized as the Best Major Command Social Actions Programs in the Air Force while assigned to Langley Air Force Base as the Chief of the Equal Opportunity and Treatment-Human Relations Education Branch. Colonel Andre and his lovely wife, Patty, will begin a new career in Virginia where Jon will again use his communication and interpersonal skill as a human resources director for the historic Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. I know I speak for the entire McGuire community in wishing Jon and his family the very best as they leave the U.S. Air Force. I offer my personal thanks and the thanks of an appreciative nation as he begins a new chapter in his life.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the residents of Tabernacle Township, NJ at the time of their second annual Tabernacle Volunteer Appreciation Dinner. It would be difficult to name, in the context of this extension of remarks, all those worthwhile organizations whose members are being honored. That one community supports such a myriad of organizations, which run the gamut from religious, civic, athletic, public safety, educational, community support, and political groups, is testament to its citizens. On February 2, 1997, special recognition will be given to the Tabernacle Township PTA, Inc. at the time of its 75th anniversary. This association of parents and educators has been active in local schools since 1921. Through its provision of books, school equipment, scholarships, family activities, after-school child care, and summer recreation programs, this organization has proven its worth for three- quarters of a century--quite an achievement. I extend my congratulations to the PTA's members, past and present, as well as to the many selfless volunteers who will be honored for their commitment to their community. They deserve our praise and thanks.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I--along with my colleague from Hawaii, Mr. Abercrombie--am pleased to introduce a concurrent resolution declaring the significance of maintaining the health and stability of coral reef ecosystems. Coral reefs have been called the tropical rainforests of the oceans, and rightfully so--they are among the world's most biologically diverse and productive marine habitats. They are also vitally important to coastal economies, providing as the basis for subsistence and commercial fishing as well as coastal and marine tourism. Finally, reefs serve as natural protection to the coastlines of several U.S. States and territories, such as Florida, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa. For these reasons, and in honor of the fact that 1997 has been declared the ``International year of the Reef,'' I urge swift and favorable consideration of this resolution.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the Marine Resources Revitalization Act of 1997, a bill to reauthorize the National Sea Grant College Program. By way of background, the National Sea Grant College Program was established by Congress in 1966 in an effort to improve our Nation's marine resource conservation efforts, to better manage those resources, and to enhance their proper utilization. Housed within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Sea Grant is modeled after the highly successful Land Grant College Program created in 1862. Over the past 30 years, Sea Grant has dramatically defined our capabilities to make decisions about marine, coastal, and Great Lakes resources--vast, publicly owned resources which are of vital economic, social, and cultural importance to our rapidly growing coastal populations. In doing so, Sea Grant promotes high quality, peer- reviewed scientific research. Furthermore, Sea Grant distributes scientific results regionally and locally through educational and advisory programs at over 300 universities and affiliated institutions nationwide. Twenty-nine of these are specifically designated as Sea Grant colleges or institutional programs, and they serve to coordinate Sea Grant activities on a State-by-State basis. The Marine Resources Revitalization 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 consortia; repeals the post-doctoral fellowship and international programs, both of which have never been funded; and makes several minor clerical or conforming amendments. I would like to acknowledge three of my distinguished colleagues--Don Young of Alaska, Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii, and Sam Farr of California--for their leadership in this reauthorization effort. We firmly believe that this legislation represents a realistic approach to reauthorizing the Sea Grant Program--the bill is inherently noncontroversial and has been fully endorsed by the administration. By enacting this legislation, we send a clear message supporting the protection and wise use of our marine and coastal resources.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I have no more requests for time at this point, and if the gentleman is prepared to yield back, I am prepared to do the same.