Jim Saxton

Mr. SAXTON

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. 3546) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey the Walhalla National Fish Hatchery to the State of South Carolina, as amended.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to take action on H.R. 3546, the Walhalla National Fish Hatchery Conveyance Act. H.R. 3546 was introduced by Congressman Lindsey Graham on May 29, 1996. Under the terms of this bill, the Secretary of the Interior shall convey to the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, within 180 days of enactment and without reimbursement, all right, title, and interest to the Walhalla Hatchery facility for use as a State hatchery. Furthermore, the proposal contains a reversionary clause that stipulates that the property will be returned to the Federal Government if it is used for something other than fishery resources management. This facility is extremely important to the State of South Carolina because it is the only public source for brown trout; there is no reasonable alternative for stocking the State's waters; and without these fish, there is no viable sport fishing for trout. While privately produced trout are available, this option was explored and rejected because of lack of supply control, cost fluctuations, and the potential introduction of diseases. I urge all Members to support this noncontroversial bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 3546, the bill just passed.

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 material on H.R. 3287, the bill just passed.

Mr. SAXTON

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 yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this bill, H.R. 3557, the Marion National Fish Hatchery Conveyance Act. H.R. 3557 was introduced by Congressman Earl Hilliard on May 30, 1996. This bill is similar to measures that transferred the Corning, Fairport, and New London Fish Hatcheries to the States. Under the terms of this bill, the Secretary of the Interior shall convey to the State of Alabama, within 180 days of enactment and without reimbursement, all right, title, and interest to the Marion Hatchery. The facility will be used by the Game and Fish Division of the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources for the State's fish culture program. The proposal also contains a reversionary clause that stipulates that the property will be returned to the Federal Government if it is used for something other than fishery resources management and fisheries-related activities. In the most recent real estate assessment in 1994, the property was valued at $465,000 and the structures have been assessed at $1,062,000 according to the Realty Division of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The State has indicated that it has spent over $2 million on facility improvements and renovations since it assumed operational control in 1974. I urge all Members to support this noncontroversial bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3557) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey the Marion National Fish Hatchery to the State of Alabama, as amended.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3287) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey the Crawford National Fish Hatchery to the city of Crawford, NE, as amended.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss H.R. 3287, the Crawford National Fish Hatchery Conveyance Act. This bill was introduced by Congressman Bill Barrett on April 23, 1996. Under the terms of this bill, the Secretary of the Interior shall convey to the city of Crawford, within 180 days of enactment and without reimbursement, all right, title, and interest to the Crawford hatchery facility to the city of Crawford. This facility will be used as a city park and for other public recreation purposes. The proposal also contains a reversionary clause that stipulates that the property will be returned to the Federal Government if it is used for something other than recreational purposes. It is important to note that the hatchery is located in the middle of an existing city park. While the city has spent a considerable amount of money restoring those parklands under their jurisdiction, the hatchery buildings and ponds are in a highly deteriorated state. There is little likelihood that this facility will ever again be used by either the State of Nebraska or the Federal Government as a hatchery. I urge all Members to support this noncontroversial bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to memorialize a great public servant and a good person, Ms. Mollie Beattie, director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the occasion of the unanimous passage in the House of Representatives of the Mollie Beattie Wilderness Area, S. 1899. Mollie Beattie was unfortunately struck down in the prime of her life by a dreadful illness and we shall all miss the humor, hard work, good sense, and dedication she brought to her post. It is unfortunate to lose her for so many different reasons. Sadly enough, she leaves behind a husband and family. Mollie Beattie also leaves behind a group of dedicated wildlife protectors in this Congress who felt a kinship in working with her. I know I am one of those Members of Congress who will miss her greatly. I remember a meeting with Mollie not too long ago. We are discussing an issue important to my district that has been dragging on and on for 5, 6, 7 years. Mollie turned to my constituents during that meeting and so succinctly expressed their concerns that they were stunned. They were delighted because they knew they were dealing with a representative of the Federal Government who understood their interest in providing habitat for species. Mollie then turned to me and told me what needed to be done and what she would do about it. She was a no nonsense, cut-to-the-chase type of thinker and we all appreciate that around here. And we all appreciated that quality in her. I know that she will be greatly missed by the members of her staff and of her Agency. She will be missed in the Halls of Congress. It is with great pleasure and much sadness that I join in the dedication of the Arctic Refuge Wilderness Area as the Mollie Beattie Wilderness Area. God Bless her and her family.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, first let me commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell] for the extremely diligent and hard work that he has done in bringing this amendment to the floor. I think it is of great importance, and I guess from the Joint Economic Committee point of view, the best I think to say is very simply that we talk about growth policy in taxes, and we talk about the negative aspects or the negative effects of high taxes, and I think on both sides of the aisle we share the belief that there is a stimulus that can be gained if we are smart about tax policy. And we also recognize, I think on both sides of the aisle, that bad tax policy can work as a wet blanket on the economy, a wet blanket on our revenue. And yet the rules that we operate under deny any of that takes place. And so, the gentleman's amendment gives the chairman of the committee the opportunity, the choice to make as to whether or not they want to treat a particular item of tax policy and score it and figure out what is going to happen in terms of our revenue from a dynamic model, meaning that we accept the fact that there will be some changes positive or negative, and that that can be factored into the equation. One of the things that happens around here to all of us in Congress is that people do not think that we know what we are doing. And I think sometimes that happens with good cause. If we, on the one hand, say that we are going to pass a certain tax because we want to make the economy grow and hence enhance our revenue stream, and yet our rules tell us that that cannot happen and we cannot consider those facts, then, in fact, the public is certainly entitled to think we do not know what we are doing. Mr. Chairman, I was fishing the other day in the rain. This is a story that goes along with this static model, I think. I was fishing in the rain the other day and I got off the boat after having a wonderful day fishing and the skipper said, How did you like it? I said, it was wonderful, we caught fish, the company was good, but the only thing is my glasses kept fogging up because it was raining. And he said, You should be used to that; you are from Washington. And this static rule is one of the things around here that perpetuates the knowledge, the belief among the American public, that we do not know what we are doing and that our glasses are, in fact, foggy. So, Mr. Chairman, the amendment of the gentleman from California will go a long way, in my view, toward unfogging our glasses and letting us know ahead of time what it is that our policy will produce.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by my good friend, which I think is misguided. The speakers on the other side of the aisle have referred to this as a cost-saver. I think it is more appropriately called a big government bill, very simply, because it adds an additional step to the contracting process on surface transportation projects. Any project above $50,000 will henceforth, if this amendment passes, have an additional step on it which will require more State workers and more salaries paid to State workers. Mr. Chairman, as we know, the Joint Economic Committee, of which I am Vice-Chair, this year has produced numerous studies that show that when government grows, the economy slows. That is a very simple concept. So my friends on the other side of the aisle who are interested in voting tonight for more big government, for more State spending, and more Federal spending, this is just their vote. I do not mean that, I do not say this to be smart. That is exactly what it is. What we have tried to do here in the last year and a half is to set the stage for smaller government, government that will permit the private sector to grow and to continue to provide opportunities in the free enterprise system for Americans to work and prosper. This amendment goes exactly in the opposite direction, and I urge all Members on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no.''

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I would like to express my personal appreciation to the chairman of the subcommittee and to the gentlemen from New Jersey, Mr. Zimmer and Mr. Frelinghuysen, on behalf of myself, but more on behalf of the constituents that I represent in the Toms River area. If we can imagine for a minute being in a situation where an inordinate percentage or number of young people have developed brain cancer in a relatively small area among a population of people, it is a heart-wrenching experience for those families and, to a large extent, for me and my staff who have worked with these families and with the Whitman administration and commissioner of health, Lynn Fishman, from New Jersey. Just briefly, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the people that I represent, I thank the gentleman very, very much for what he has done here to help us get a handle on this most important problem.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to just take 1 minute to say to my friends on the other side of the aisle we have worked together so well through this process I would certainly hope that we could bring it to a successful conclusion here today. The gentleman, the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman], and I in particular worked together on the community right-to-know provisions so that everyone who reaches up and turns on the tap water in their home or in their place of business will know that it is good, clean water without contaminants that will be harmful to them or their families. This is a consumer-friendly bill, therefore, which will provide our constituents with more information than ever before. When this bill become law, violations of the water standards will be reviewed and be reported to customers within 24 hours of any violation, and every year every member of the community, every consumer in the community, will be provided with a consumer confidence report listing all foreign materials. I think this is an excellent bill and I urge passage today.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, let me reoffer, we have decided on our side that we are happy to grant the gentleman unanimous consent to take Connecticut out.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I just would like to say to the gentleman from Connecticut that I am kind of surprised hearing his opposition this morning, particularly since the gentleman is from the State of New Jersey and inasmuch as the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], offered the gentleman an opportunity to take Connecticut out of this bill. So it surprises me that the gentleman declined the opportunity to take Connecticut out of the bill, saying that apparently Connecticut ought to be included. And now the gentleman is opposed to the bill. I do not understand, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Bass].

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2909, the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge Eminent Domain Prevention Act, was introduced by Congressman Charles Bass on January 31, 1996. The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to acquire lands for the Silvio O. Conte Refuge only with the consent of the landowner. Unlike many refuges, the Conte refuge spans four States--Vermont, Conneticut, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. Landowners surrounding the refuge are concerned that eminent domain will be used to condemn their properties, so the Fish and Wildlife Service will be able to purchase the properties without the owners' consent. At the subcommittee's legislative hearing, the Fish and Wildlife Service did acknowledge that there is precedent for similar willing seller language already set in law. The Service also maintains that it does not intend to use eminent domain as a land acquisition tool for the Conte Refuge. That being the case, codifying this prohibition into statutory language would not adversely affect Fish and Wildlife Service operations. It would, however, serve the useful purpose of quelling landowner concerns. I urge an ``aye'' vote on this bill in support of property owners' rights. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that on page 2, line 5 of the bill, the word ``Emminent'' be corrected to read ``Eminent.''

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. A, I do not apologize; and, B, this is not silly. This is a protection of people's right to own property without having to be afraid of Big Brother coming along and taking it from them. I would say further, Mr. Speaker, that the refuge system, as chairman of the Fish and Wildlife and Ocean Subcommittee, the refuge system is something that I have taken great pains to protect and to enhance the process through which it works. That is why we passed a bill earlier this year to reform the process so that people will want the process to continue to move forward so that they will not be afraid that refuges and refuge managers and the Fish and Wildlife Service will become Big Brother and take over their property. And so, Mr. Speaker, I do not apologize in any sense of the word, nor do I believe this is silly. I think it is a very serious issue. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Bass].

Mr. SAXTON. I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire.

Mr. SAXTON. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I do not plan to object. I would like to point out that I am not quite sure what is different about the constituencies that live in the 2 States which will be exempted under this unanimous consent request. In the case of Mr. Bass' constituents, he is concerned, the gentleman from New Hampshire, Mr. Bass, is concerned that his constituents feel comfortable with the process that will be ongoing. And apparently Mr. Gejdenson and the gentleman from Massachusetts do not share the same concerns or their constituents do not share the same concerns as to how the process will proceed without the protection which will be eliminated by virtue of this unanimous-consent request.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, first let me commend the gentleman for bringing this amendment to the floor today. I think it is of great importance and my personal thanks to him for doing so. Mr. Chairman, I have often been amazed during my time in the Congress by some of the incredible events that occur from time to time that are brought to our attention. I have seldom been appalled. Today I am appalled, appalled at the proposal of a developer in Poland to build a commercial development right next to Auschwitz death camp. Imagine if you will for just a moment a strip mall built at a place, for example, inside Arlington Cemetery, just about the same thing. I cannot believe that you can honor the millions of Catholics and Gypsies and Jews slaughtered by the Nazis with this kind of development. This is desecration and, frankly, I think it pretty sick. I call on the Polish Government to honor its commitment to disallow this project, and I call on the United States Government to use its full authority to assist the Polish Government in this endeavor. Once again, I want to commend the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer] for bringing this to the floor today.