Jim Saxton

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. The interesting thing about what you say is that by reducing the tax burden on American families, by making it possible, again, to achieve this 3.5-percent growth that we have seen since World War II on average, and by balancing the budget by continuing the policies that we started during the last year in terms of reducing expenditures, by putting together a program like that it makes it better for all families in America. It makes it better for people who are workers. It makes it better for people who are entrepreneurs. It makes it better for people who are in all kinds of businesses across our country. It makes it better for the labor unions and the working folks because they can expect once again to see wages on the increase and our standard of living go up. It is not extreme importance that we as Members of Congress and the American people generally come to grips with what it is that we have been attempting to do here the last 2 years and what it is that Bob Dole has suggested that we do, which is very similar to what John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan each in their time suggested. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to emphasize one of the things that you have correctly and articulately pointed out. I guess I would do it this way. During the last 3 or 4 years we have gotten ourselves into a situation where wages have shrunk and taxes have increased. And so when you have shrinking wages and increased taxes, you get people in a pinch. You get people in a crunch. And, of course, that has happened during the Clinton administration, and there have been some around here who have called that Bill Clinton's crunch. In other words, we have got these lowering wages, increasing taxes, which means for every family in America less disposable income. Tougher to get a loan, tougher to get the kids clothes in September when they go back to school, tougher to go to the Acme Market or the Super Saver Market or whatever market you go to every week, and this issue of less disposable income is one of the primary reasons why the generation that you just spoke about, your kids, are looking at their adult life and saying: ``Wow, did my parents have more opportunity than I did for the first time in the history of our country?''

Mr. SAXTON. I thank the gentleman for pointing that out, and certainly savings and finding ways to pinch pennies, as you have correctly pointed out, is crucial to our getting the job done that we need to get done. Because we can get more revenue through economic growth policies, but if we do wrong again, that which we did wrong in the 1980's, it will all be for naught because this has got to be a two- pronged program. We can do right, what we did in the 1980's, but we also have got to pinch pennies. I saw the Speaker of the House, Mr. Gingrich, give a speech on television the other day, and he was talking about this very subject. He did not have six pennies, but he had an ice bucket, and I thought what in the world is the Speaker going to do with this ice bucket? And he held it in his hand, and he pointed that when we took control of this House 2 years ago, or a year and a half ago, the Republican Party decided to do things differently around here, and prior to the time we took over every office, every Member of Congress had two buckets of ice delivered to his or her office every day. I just kind of took it for granted in the 10 years or so that I had been here that ice showed up. I do not know whether anybody used it or not. I did not. But when we took over, we decided it was something we did not need to do, and let me tell you we saved. According to the Speaker, from what I heard him say the other day, we saved $400,000 by pinching ice buckets, I guess, and not doing the foolish things that happened back in the days before we had refrigeration, back in the days when we maybe needed to put lunch on ice, literally. Today, every office has a refrigerator in it, and the Congress was continuing to spend $400,000 every year on ice.

Mr. SAXTON. I would just like to reclaim my time here for just a minute. I will be happy to continue the discourse, the dialog, with the gentleman. One of the things that we have done on the Joint Economic Committee, and I am sure that, as the gentleman knows, we have done a number of studies to try to identify where we ought to be and how we ought to get there, and one of the things that surprised me--I had no idea this had happened, probably should have known. When I was elected to Congress, the Federal Government was consuming something like 19 percent of the gross domestic product, and since I have been here, and I am not proud of this, since I have been here, usually voting against these policies, but since I have been here, in the 12 years we have grown so that our government today consumes 23 percent of the gross domestic product. In other words, over this short period of time, relatively short period of time, we have gone from consuming 18 percent of GDP to 23 percent of GDP. That is dangerous. We talk about big government a lot around here and about how to make it smaller, and if there is anything that I think points to the necessity of remaining serious about the things that we have started here in the last 2 years, it is that statistic, because as government grows bigger and more expensive, obviously it take more money away and more freedoms away from the people that elect us to come here to safeguard those very freedoms and to run our government as economically as we can. So when I saw that study which showed that kind of growth in government, it frightened me to death, and I hope that when people hear about it, it will sober some of our friends on the other side of the aisle as well.

Mr. SAXTON. Exactly. That is what the Dole suggestion is all about, about reducing the rate of taxation in order to promote this type of economic growth that we have seen before. I would like to thank the gentleman for taking part in this special order, and just conclude by saying that it has been proven since the 1960's, when John Kennedy was President, he gave that famous speech right here at the podium where he said taxes are too high and the economy is suffering because of it, and Lyndon Johnson, his successor, actually put those programs into place and the economy grew. Then Ronald Reagan got elected in 1980 and said almost the same thing, almost the same words, almost the same policies, very similar, similar enough to promote the kind of growth that we got during the 1980's. If we today, in 1996, can look at the examples set by Kennedy and Reagan, and if we can look at what they did right, and if we can duplicate, as nearly as we can in today's situation, the policies that they did which were so right for our country and so right for economic growth, and at the same time recognize what this House and the other House and the President did wrong in the 1980s; which was a failure to control spending, if we can do those two things and do them right, we will leave a legacy for our children that we can be very proud of. I would like to thank both the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith] and the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Wamp] for taking part in this special order.

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

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for pointing that out. It is certainly one of the elements of things that we ought to get done around here to get business going again. Obviously there are other people in this town who have similar ideas. For example, we all know that there is a Presidential campaign underway. One of the candidates, who happens to be Bob Dole, has suggested something similar to what Mr. Smith has suggested. He has suggested that, as we saw in 1993 when this tax increase was imposed by the Clinton administration and primarily by the Democrats in the House, that we reverse that, that we begin to put in place something that we like to call growth policy. So, Bob Dole has suggested that we ought to cut income taxes, that we ought to cut the capital gains tax, that we ought to have a family child tax credit and that other tax changes such as the one that Mr. Smith just suggested might be part of the package as well, although in the case of the specific one, that is not part of his particular package. But Dole has suggested that significant tax decreases would help to remedy the problem that we have identified in terms of the speed or the rate of growth of our economy. Bob Dole has suggested, for example, that under his program, a family making $35,000 a year in gross income would save $1,374 a year in tax savings under his plan, and a family making $45,000 a year would actually save $1,603 a year. This pumps money back in the economy and relieves the tax burden on families and small business and helps to get the economic engine fired up and going again. Mr. Speaker, I am going to say something that some of the Members on this side of the aisle may have forgotten. I can remember in 1984, which happens to be the first time I aspired to run for Congress and come here and be a Member of this body, I can remember it was the time when Ronald Reagan was running for his second term. I was so proud to be on the ticket with Ronald Reagan because he talked about a growth policy. I went through that campaign, and I talked about the Reagan tax cuts that went into place in 1981 and 1982 and 1983 and how the economy began to grow. And then I came here and I began to study Reagan's policies. I found out that there was somebody before Ronald Reagan who had the same kinds of ideas and he was not from our party; he was from the other party. His name was John Kennedy. Surprising. In 1963 John Kennedy said in his State of the Union Address from that podium: We cannot for long expect to lead the cause of peace and freedom around the world if we fail to set the economic pace at home. He recognized that the economy was slowing down. He recognized that there were problems. He recognized that wages were not increasing the way they should be. And John Kennedy, the member of the other party, the Democrat President, went on in that speech to outline a series of tax cuts much like Bob Dole's, not exactly, but much like them. Unfortunately, his death occurred. But after his death, LBJ and the Democrat controlled Congress put in place those tax cuts, and guess what? The economy grew. The economy grew. We took off again. We had good growth in jobs and good growth in wages, and it was a wonderful experience to have watched that. So when I ran in 1984, I was so proud of Ronald Reagan. One of the first conclusions that I made here when I got my feet on the ground and began to understand a little bit about this growth policy, and I kind of laugh to myself now, I think Ronald Reagan read John Kennedy's speech. So this does not have to be a partisan issue. This does not have to be a part of a Presidential campaign. It just happens to be the truth. It happens to be what works. And so what Bob Dole has suggested here really can work. And the experience that we had in the 1980's proves that it works. Did we do everything right in the 1980's? No. We did not do everything right in the 1980's, but we did some things right in the 1980's, and tax policy is part of what we did right. Mr. Speaker, let us talk about what we did right for a minute. This next chart shows what happened in 1981, 1982, and 1983. This is where Ronald Reagan got elected. Our economy was flat, much the same condition only maybe a little bit worse than it is now. We are experiencing about 2.2 percent growth. I have forgotten exactly what the growth was, but we had a recession, which means we had negative growth, and Ronald Reagan said: I know how to fix this. We are going to reduce taxes and put in place growth policy like Bob Dole is talking about in today's campaign. And in 1982 when the second installment of that tax cut went into place, the economy started to grow. It grew astonishingly throughout the decade of the 1980's. So, not only did John Kennedy understand what it is that Bob Dole has suggested and why it works, we see in the 1980's that Ronald Reagan did much the same thing in terms of tax policy. Let me just show what happened to wages during that period of time. We talked about what is happening with wages today. They are going down. During the Carter years, remember the years of malaise and inflation and high interest rates and the lousy economy, wages were going down during those Carter years, too. But as soon as Reagan's policies went into effect, wages started to go up again. It was better for families. People were optimistic again. We believed in our selves, and it was in large part of the economic policies that both Kennedy and Reagan have at different time in our history subscribed to and have helped to bring about changes in our country. I mentioned a minute ago though that we did not do everything right in the 1980's, and we did not. We all know that, because we continued, collectively, and I think there is enough blame to go around for this, we continued the spending spree during the 1980's. In spite of the fact that the economy grew and in spite of the fact that we had economic growth, we did not balance the budget. But it is not because of the tax cuts that we did not balance the budget. A lot of people will be very surprised to see this. This is a chart with a red line on the top and a blue line on the bottom. The blue line shows what happened with our Federal revenue. When the economy grew, more people went back to work. They made higher wages, so they paid more in taxes, and that meant Washington had more money available to spend. And as the economy grew through the 1980's, this blue line shows that revenues went up. In fact, in 1980 we had at our disposal $517 million to spend in 1980. By 1990 we had $1.03 trillion. In other words, we had increased by $514 billion the money that we had to spend. Let me say that again. We had tax cuts, that is right, tax rate decreases. And when the economy began to grow because of it, our revenues that we had available to us doubled between 1980 and 1990. Pretty astonishing. What did we do wrong? We kept right on spending.

Mr. SAXTON. I am pleased to yield.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett], the author of this bill.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 2679) to revise the boundary of the North Platte National Wildlife Refuge.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, before yielding back, let me yield myself such time as I may consume to thank the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson], my friend and the ranking member of the committee, for the great cooperation that he has shown on this bill, as well as many other bills that we have done together. I have a report here which I just looked at which indicates that already our subcommittee has had 13 bills signed into law in this session. Without the cooperation of the gentleman, and the other members of the minority, that would not have happened. I would also like to point out, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett] has worked so hard and has been so diligent on this bill in overcoming hurdle after hurdle in the subcommittee and committee process. We were going to vote on this bill I think a week or two ago, and something came up and the gentleman was right back at it bringing to our attention the urgent nature of getting this done. So I commend the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett] for his very hard work.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, on April 23 of this year, the House overwhelmingly adopted H.R. 2679, a bill introduced by our colleague from Nebraska, Bill Barrett, to remove certain lands from the North Platte National Wildlife Refuge. The other body has now acted on this legislation and while they made no changes in the North Platte provision, they did add a new title to the bill dealing with the Pettaquamscutt Cove National Wildlife Refuge in Rhode Island. This refuge was established in 1988 to protect valuable coastal wetlands that provide essential habitat to a diverse group of species of waterfowl, shore and wading birds, small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. In fact, it is my understanding that this cove is the most important habitat in Rhode Island for the black duck population under the North American waterfowl management plan. While the boundaries of the refuge now encompass about 460 acres of salt marsh and forest habitat, title II of H.R. 2679 will authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire a 100-acre parcel of land known as Foddering Farm Acres. This property is privately owned and there are certain commercial interests that desire to develop these lands. Fortunately, the people who own this property, the Rotelle family, have indicated their willingness to donate a portion of the value of the property to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Mr. Speaker, I have been advised by the author of this measure, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, that there is some urgency in moving this legislation forward. I am pleased to present this bill to the House and strongly believe that these modifications in two refuge units in Nebraska and Rhode Island will greatly enhance the fundamental goal of our National Wildlife Refuge System. I urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 2679 and compliment Bill Barrett and Senator John Chafee for their outstanding leadership in this matter. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON

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

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill entitled the ``Ocean Dumping Termination Act of 1996.'' This bill goes a long way to solving some recent problems we have had with attempts to weaken ocean dumping regulations. While some would have us believe that protection of the oceans is something we can worry about later, coming from the Third District of New Jersey, I know that ocean protection is something that must happen now. In 1988 I was part of the original effort to cease the dumping of toxic substances into the ocean. I was part of this effort because I personally saw and had to live through the environmental havoc caused by wholesale ocean dumping. The beaches of New Jersey were coated with trash and toxic waste--the beaches were closed and the coastal economy was in ruins. Today, through stringent ocean dumping regulations, the beaches of New Jersey have rebounded. Each year we get millions of visitors to New Jersey's beaches. These visitors generate billions of dollars of revenue for the State and the Nation. Why, then, have there been recently attempts to turn back the clock on this great environmental success story? Because of the greed and political aspirations of a few. Why should those few benefit from environmental degradation? They should not. And they will not on my watch. Today I introduce the Ocean Dumping Termination Act to stop this downslide of environmental protection. This bill will close the only remaining mud dump site off the coast of New Jersey 6 months from enactment of the act. From the date of signature on this act, all category II dump materials--materials toxic to the ocean and to people--will completely cease. And this bill will assure that steps can be taken to mitigate any remaining environmental harm that could result from this mound of sludge sitting just 12 miles off the coast of New Jersey. As one of my esteemed colleagues, who has served the interests of the oceans for over 20 years, stated earlier today on this floor, we work for the sanctity of the critters of the ocean. Those critters do not care about the demarcation between Democrats and Republicans--but they care more than they are able to say about the health of their environment. I care about the health and welfare of that environment and the people of New Jersey and this Nation and I can do something about it. Today, I did. I urge broad support for this bill, the Ocean Dumping Termination Act of 1996.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation. It is a good bill, a sound bill, and a bill which we need for our national security interests and for the men and women who serve our country in uniform. Let me first commend my good friend, the gentleman from Maine, Jim Longley, for his outstanding work on this bill. As a Marine Corps reserve officer who served in Desert Storm and in Bosnia, Jim Longley brings real-life experience and insight to this issue. It is particularly frustrating if not downright dangerous to see the growing tendency of this administration to cede operational control of U.S. forces to the ill-equipped, ill-prepared bureaucratic United Nations. Yes, there are times when we must act in concert with our allies, perhaps often, and yes, there are occasions when the United Nations can help defuse a crisis. But when U.S. lives and interests are at stake, the American public expects and demands that Americans be at the helm. No one questions the capability of the U.S. military. We have the best-trained, best-equipped men and women in the world. To project and command military forces over great distances is something that few nations can do, and no nation can do it better than the United States. Yet this capability does not come without a price. Every year thousands of troops are engaged in either real-life or training operations which hone this capability, often at great human risk. And they should remain under U.S. control.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just like to once again express my appreciation for the many years of cooperation of Gerry Studds and hope that he will come back and visit us often and leave us with his words of wisdom from time to time. One other thing that I would just like to say, Mr. Speaker, before yielding back the balance of my time. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. Metcalf] played a particularly strong hand in one section of this bill which had to do with the establishment of a marine sanctuary in Puget Sound where we were able to again, on a bipartisan basis, agree on some very special provisions to protect the integrity of the local folks back in the 6 counties surrounding Puget Sound which guarantees that they will have a say in the establishment if and when that marine sanctuary is established. I thank everybody for their cooperation with regard to this measure, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3487) to reauthorize the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering H.R. 3487, which was introduced on May 16 by the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr] and by me. I might say at this point, Mr. Speaker, that so often partisanship seems to be the byword around these chambers. In this case, partisanship, as far as I can determine, played no part whatsoever. The gentleman from California [Mr. Farr], and I and others worked together as Republicans and Democrats on a very amicable basis, and I believe produced a product which reflects that kind of bipartisanship. We introduced this bill to reauthorize the National Marine Sanctuaries Act through the year 1999. The National Marine Sanctuaries Act is implemented by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration through the National Marine Sanctuaries Program. The mission of this program is to protect significant marine environmental and cultural resources while ensuring the continuation of all compatible public and private uses. To accomplish this, the program oversees a system of specially managed marine areas. These areas include highly valuable environmental and historical features. Over the past 21 years 14 national marine sanctuaries have been designated off our Nation's shore, from Massachusetts to Florida to the Gulf of Mexico and Hawaii. Two more are active candidates for designation, one in the Great Lakes and one in the waters of Washington State. H.R. 3487 authorizes funding for the National Marine Sanctuaries Program through the year 1999; directs the Secretary of Commerce to prepare and submit to Congress a long-range plan for management, recovery, and preservation of the U.S.S. Monitor; authorizes the Secretary to designate sponsors for the sanctuary program to create, market, and sell symbols and products to promote them; and designates that the money collected from those items sold at the sanctuary can be retained and used by that sanctuary. This bill also adds Stetson Bank to the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary in Texas; simplifies the designation process for a minor addition to the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary and prohibits user fees in that sanctuary; and establishes an advisory committee, and this was of special import to the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Jack Metcalf, establishes an advisory committee on the Northwest Straits Sanctuary proposal, and requires congressional approval for designation of that sanctuary. These are small changes that will allow the system to operate more effectively and efficiently and to be more responsive to the public's concerns. Finally, of special interest to me and to other members of the committee, H.R. 3487 renames the Stellwagon Bank National Marine Sanctuary in honor of our colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts, Gerry Studds. As many of my colleagues know, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] has been a Member of the Congress for 24 years and has announced his retirement. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] replaced Walter Jones in 2\1/2\, actually almost 4 years now as chairman of the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, and acted at that time as well as chairman of the Fish and Wildlife Subcommittee, and became the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans in this term under the auspices of the current committee setup. I would just like to say also, Mr. Speaker, that were it not for the gentleman from Massachusetts, Gerry Studds, and his ideas and his enthusiasm and the effort that he has put into his committee work, many of the programs and projects that we have worked on on a bipartisan basis simply would not be. So it is because he was instrumental in getting Stellwagon designated as a sanctuary, and by naming it in his honor we recognize his outstanding leadership in marine protection efforts during the past two decades plus of years of service in the House. We also reauthorize the National Marine Sanctuaries Act this year, and by doing so we will demonstrate our collective commitment to protecting and wisely managing our Nation's marine natural resources. Therefore, I urge a ``yea'' vote on H.R. 3487. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, in a colloquy just heard between the gentleman from California, Mr. Cunningham, and the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Fawell, a request on the part of Mr. Fawell was that we revisit the issue of impact aid in the future Congresses. I would remind all Members that we revisit the issue of impact aid in every Congress, and I am glad we are revisiting it in this Congress. Mr. Speaker, I compliment the gentleman from California, Mr. Cunningham, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Goodling, for the job they have done in recognizing there are and were and probably will be some inequities in this very complicated formula. Mr. Speaker, what makes it complicated is that in each State, because each State and locality has a different method of funding their schools, from time to time the Federal formula does not work as we would intend it to. Therefore, from time to time we need to make changes and modifications and adjustments to the formula. In one case in particular, for example, in New Jersey, it happens to be in my district, North Hanover Township, there is the school that provides the educational facilities and programs for the boys and girls who are dependents of the Air Force families at McGuire Air Force Base. North Hanover Township has 85 percent of its student body which comes from military dependents from McGuire Air Force Base. In this case, in 1994 the North Hanover school district lost or did not receive almost $2 million which was intended to support those military dependent children. So this bill makes that correction and restores those funds for this school and benefits a large number of military dependent children. Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very fine effort on the part of this Congress and in particular on the part of the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], and I urge support for this bill.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3579) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain property containing a fish and wildlife facility to the State of Wyoming, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. SAXTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss H.R. 3579, a bill to convey Ranch A to the State of Wyoming. This bill was introduced by our colleague, Barbara Cubin, on June 5 of this year. Under the terms of this bill, the Secretary shall convey property to the State, within 180 days of enactment and without reimbursement, all right, title, and interest in the property commonly known as Ranch A to be used for fish and wildlife management and education. The State of Wyoming is directed to allow access to the property for institutions of higher education at a rate of compensation mutually agreed upon. Furthermore, the proposal stipulates that the property will revert to the Federal Government if it is used for something other than the authorized purpose. This is a noncontroversial and meritorious bill. I urge all Members to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that on both sides of the aisle there are a number of staff members who are here present today who have a lot to do from time to time and on an ongoing basis, as a matter of fact, with the fact that we are able to address matters on a bipartisan basis on the Committee on Resources. So I would just like to take this opportunity to thank them.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.