Jim Saxton

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 all bills just passed.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, let me just begin, and I had to smile when my friend, the gentleman from New York, Charlie Schumer, and other speakers on this side characterized what the Republican Party is trying to do for national security as wimpish. I do not think anybody takes that as a credible statement. The provisions of this bill on aviation safety are certainly not wimpish. The provisions on Federal racketeering statutes and the use of them in regard to terrorist acts is not wimpish. The use of enhanced telephone technology to catch terrorists and know what they are doing is not wimpish. This is not a wimpish bill. In fact, it moves in the right direction. Mr. Speaker, I remember in 1990 then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney coming to the Committee on Armed Services and saying, the world is going to change, folks. The Soviet Union, the threats posed by the Soviet Union are going to diminish, and other threats will become more important. He was talking about regional threats and the threats posed by terrorism. On June 20, 21, and 22 of this year in Tehran a group of international terrorists met in a conference. They formed an organization known as the International Hezbollah, and they vowed to ratchet up terrorist acts against the West, particularly against the United States and our people overseas. Shortly following that, a murder occurred in Egypt. It was an American diplomat. This organization took credit. Some time after that a bombing occurred in Dharhan at the airport. Nineteen Americans were killed, and they took credit. Shortly after that an airplane fell out of the sky over Long Island, and we do not know yet, but we suspect there may be a connection there as well. So what this bill does is simply to try to take us in the direction of a more secure situation for our people overseas, our travelers, and our people here at home. For those who think it does not go far enough, fine. We will go further in the next bill. For those who object to a provision of this, it is their right to object. But vote to support this bill which moves in the right direction.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], the author of the bill.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chair for making in order the consideration of this bill, H.R. 2823, which would codify the Panama Declaration. This bill has been the subject of scrutiny by several committees: The Committee on Resources and, of course, our Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans, the Committee on Ways and Means, as well as the Committee on Commerce. Our distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Alaska, Don Young, and the gentleman from Massachusetts, Gerry Studds, have both expressed their reluctance to reopen the dolphin-safe tuna issue. They remember the rhetorical battle of the merchant marine and fisheries committee on which we all served, and I remember that battle as well. The Gilchrest bill will lead 12 nations that currently fish in the eastern tropical Pacific or the ETC to a binding agreement to conserve and protect the entire ecosystem, including dolphins. The alternative is an increase in school and log sets which result in killing sharks, endangered sea turtles, billfish, and baby tunas. These pictures exemplify what it is that we are trying to protect. We have endangered Olive Ridley turtles. We have sharks. We have wahoo and billfish and, of course, juvenile or baby tuna. These are all species that we are trying to protect pursuant to this act. Opponents of the Gilchrest bill will make several arguments. First, they will argue that the change in the status quo will lead to the wholesale slaughter of dolphins in the eastern tropical Pacific. We will show that that is not true. Second, Mr. Chairman, opponents of the Gilchrest bill will also argue that the status quo will serve the purpose of saving the dolphins. We believe that is not true. Opponents will also claim that this bill will somehow undermine NAFTA, which we also believe is untrue. So let me just start with the first issue. The first issue with regard to the Gilchrest bill will be that it is a change in the status quo and it will lead to the wholesale slaughter of dolphins. To me this is a disingenuous argument. In fact, other nations are currently setting on dolphins; in other words, fishing for tuna under dolphins, in the eastern tropical Pacific, as the regular tuna harvesting method. That is going on today, and there is a large-scale slaughter of dolphins today by other countries. These fishermen have refined their harvesting techniques so that a sizable reduction, however, in dolphin mortality has resulted from hundreds of thousands of dolphin deaths annually to just about 4,500 dolphin deaths today. Scientists say that this is about 4,500 out of a total of more than 9 million dolphin deaths. These 11 nations, Belize, Columbia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, France, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Spain, Vanuatu, and Venezuela have all negotiated with the Clinton administration in good faith to set up the framework for a binding agreement to cap dolphin mortality in the eastern tropical Pacific. Mr. Chairman, the result of these negotiations is the Panama Declaration, and the enactment of this bill is the enactment of our promises under that declaration. The linchpin to the Panama Declaration, on which neither our State Department nor other nations will compromise, is the change in the dolphin safe definition. Without this change, the Panama Declaration, the international treaty, falls apart and so does our chance for a binding international marine conservation agreement to protect dolphins and other marine life. The opponents also will argue that the Gilchrest bill, that the status quo will better serve the same purpose. Actually that is false. The status quo will no longer exist if the Panama Declaration is scuttled, and other countries will revert to their old practices. The current agreement under which these nations, known as the LaJolla Agreement, is 100 percent voluntary on the part of all nations. These nations have shown that they will walk away from the voluntary conservation measures outlined in LaJolla without this agreement. As a matter of fact, in fairness to the opponents, I delayed the subcommittee markup to ensure that all members had an opportunity to express their concerns and have them addressed. The international community expressed its determined disagreement, and I had to personally spend hours meeting with representatives of Latin American countries who threatened to walk away from this process. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] has an amendment that he will offer at the appropriate time. When we begin debate on the Studds amendment, I will discuss in detail why it will cause the demise of many more dolphins in the eastern tropical Pacific, also known as the ETP, than currently occurs. Third, as I pointed out, the opponents will also suggest that this somehow is related to NAFTA. They will further claim that if this bill is approved, the United States is telling the world that we will weaken our own environmental laws to avoid violating NAFTA. I voted against NAFTA, and I can assure my colleagues that this bill is not related to NAFTA at all. That assertion is way off the mark. We are changing the law, yes; but we are not, we are not in any way, weakening it. We are strengthening it by enticing other countries already setting on dolphins or fishing on dolphins to participate in this binding international agreement that will reduce dolphin mortality even further. Let me just repeat. A binding agreement will reduce dolphin mortality even further. Remember the current agreement is voluntary, not binding, and these countries can walk away from it at any time. The NAFTA agreement does not wash, the NAFTA argument does not wash, and neither does the assertion that we are weakening our environmental laws. I cannot fathom how a binding agreement to reduce dolphin mortalities in the ETP can be portrayed as anything, anything but a stunning environmental accomplishment. At the close of general debate I will be offering a managers amendment that, like the Gilchrest bill, is wholeheartedly supported by the Clinton administration. It is also supported by Green Peace, the American Tuna Owners Association, the Center for Marine Conservation, the Environmental Defense Fund, the World Wildlife Fund, the National Wildlife Federation, the Seafarers International Union, and the American Sportfishing Association. I will explain the substitute further at that time and urge all Members to do the right thing for all marine creatures in the eastern tropical Pacific and to vote yes. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume for purposes of closing debate. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman is right. Much of what has been said has been said. It is pretty obvious to me that the weight of the arguments in opposition to the gentleman's amendment are strong and heavy and that we should move to a vote, hopefully directly to final passage. Just let me close by summarizing. A vote in favor of final passage and previously to that, I suppose, against the Studds amendment enables the United States to join with 11 other countries to put in place fishing methods agreed to by those 12 countries that will protect dolphins, protect sea turtles, protect sharks, protect billfish, and protect juvenile tuna. That is what the gentleman from California [Mr. Bilbray] was referring to when he talked about multispecies management. It is true, I suspect, that if we were to reject this bill and in so doing enact the Studds amendment, I suppose that unilaterally we could protect dolphins in 1 country out of the 12. My understanding is that that includes presently something in the neighborhood of six to eight fishing boats on the west coast of the United States. That is what we would be regulating, six to eight boats in one country as opposed to many boats in a dozen countries. In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out, once again, that it would be unusual for the major environmental groups, including the National Wildlife Federation, the Environmental Defense Fund, Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund, the Center for Marine Conservation, and others to join with this chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans and the Clinton administration and variety of labor groups in supporting final passage of this bill, if it were subject to all of the charges that have been made by some of the opponents. Obviously, we hope that this bill passes. As one who has been a supporter of marine wildlife and aqua wildlife all of my career, along with many other Members, such as Mr. Gilchrest and others from both sides, we believe on a bipartisan basis that this bill deserves to be passed, should be passed, and will implement a very important international agreement. Mr. Chairman, I ask Members on both sides of the aisle for strong bipartisan support and encourage a ``no'' vote on the Studds amendment and obviously a ``yes'' vote on final passage.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from San Diego, CA [Mr. Bilbray].

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield. This is an important point. If we prohibit fishing on dolphins, which we now believe we can do much safer than we used to, then we not only permit fishing on log sets and permit fishing on schools, but we encourage those fishermen who would normally be fishing in a safer way on dolphins to go fish on log sets and on schools where we get this higher bycatch.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I just want the gentleman to explain perhaps to Members who are not on the committee why it is that fishing on log sets and why it is that fishing on schools of tuna produces a larger bycatch than the proposed method of fishing on dolphins.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] who is busy reerecting some visual aids.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young].

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] for purposes of responding to the author of the amendment.

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

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] who was the first to point out to me that this bill not only protects dolphins, but it also protects sea turtles, sharks, and billfish.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin].

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons].

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, first let me thank and commend the Committee on Rules, led by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], for bringing this rule to the floor. Let me also commend my friend from Maryland, Mr. Gilchrest, who was the author of this bill, who I think did a very fine job. Mr. Speaker, when I was sitting in my office of the first day of this session, press reporters called and said, ``How do you think it is going to be serving with a Democrat President, because in your term of being here you have always been able to communicate with and serve with Republican Presidents?'' I said, ``It will be my goal to find places and issues upon which the President the Democrat President, and I can agree.'' This is one of those issues. This is President Clinton's initiative. And as chairman, of the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans, I am pleased to have been able to support a Clinton administration initiative. I would also just like to point out to the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], who used some fairly harsh phrases, phrases like capitulation, and phrases like weakening the law, environmental blackmail, dolphin unsafe tuna, deception, secret negotiations, lobbyists hired by Mexico, I would just say to my friend from California those characterizations of this bill are misleading, untrue, and patently false. There is not any truth to any of those assertions and that is why I rise in support of this rule and its granting of a modified closed rule to govern debate on H.R. 2823. I realize the Committee on Resources has traditionally requested open rules, but in this case it provides for a total, including the rule, of 4 hours of debate. I believe it is certainly a rule which merits our support. Let me just in closing say, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is supported by the following organizations. Listen to this. Greenpeace, the Center for Marine Conservation, the Environmental Defense Fund, the World Wildlife Fund, the National Wildlife Federation, and the American Sports Fishing Association, to say nothing of the Clinton administration, and the AFL-CIO. This is a good rule, it is a good bill, and I urge passage of the rule.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert]. (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to take this opportunity to congratulate and recognize the distinguished career of Chief Nicholas L. Matteo, chief of police for Evesham Township in Burlington County, NJ. Chief Matteo is preparing to retire on January 1, 1997 upon completion of more than 30 years of faithful service to the Evesham Township Police Department. A native of Medford, NJ, Chief Matteo began his career with the Evesham Township Police Department responding to calls as a patrolman in 1966. As a cop on the beat, Chief Matteo served his community during time of need and emergency situations. Mr. Matteo then ascended to the rank of detective first class where he was responsible for interviewing victims, perpetrators, and the follow-up of criminal investigations. Patrol sergeant, the next title held by Mr. Matteo, entailed the overseeing of the operations of an entire patrol shift as well as direct supervision of critical incidents. Chief of police is the rank that he has held honorably since 1990. He has been responsible for the operation of a large, widely respected law enforcement agency. While serving as chief of police, Mr. Matteo has earned the respect of the men and women of the Evesham Township Police Department, as well as residents of Burlington County, by participating on the Burlington County Chiefs Association Executive Board. In 1996, the Delaware Valley Chiefs Association named him to their executive board. This is a most prestigious honor. This appointment highlights Chief Matteo's genuine concern for protecting the safety of the residents of his own community as well as those surrounding it. Chief Matteo's dedication to his community is not limited to his duties and responsibilities as a police officer. He is also keenly aware of the need for racial harmony and tolerance throughout our country. He promotes this ideal through the Coalition of Multi-Culture Understanding of Burlington and Camden counties, of which he is president. Be it a patrolman, an administrator, or a supervisor, Chief Nicholas L. Matteo has been an excellent role model for other uniformed officers and citizens of the United States. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to submit these commemorative remarks in order to share the many accomplishments of a great man with my colleagues. A man of Nicholas Matteo's stature and vision is rare indeed. While his distinguished service will be genuinely missed, it gives me great pleasure to recognize him, and to wish him good luck as he brings to a close a long and dignified career with the Evesham Township Police Department.

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 to include extraneous material on H.R. 3557, the bill just passed.