Jim Saxton

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, whether we talk about acquisition or research and development to keep our forces modern or quality of life, one thing was very evident to us at the outset of this process. That is that the President again severely underfunded with his request. Make no mistake about it. The principle upon which we guided our actions this year was that we needed to do more for our military. We simply were tired of an administration which was trying to talk the talk without walking the walk. The administration is eager to sing the praises of our military but is simply unwilling to provide the necessary support needed to ensure that we continue to have a capable, modern force. Just last year, the Committee on National Security received testimony from the General Accounting Office and from the CBO. Both organizations stated that the administration's defense plan was underfunded to the tune of $120 to $150 billion over the next 5 to 7 years. The White House's response? Request $30 billion less this year. With respect to military construction alone and family housing, as the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] just pointed out, the budget was 18 percent less than current funding for this year. Mr. Chairman, some Members are quick to point out that the cold war is over, and I agree. Yes, it is, and the world is different today than it was in the 1980's, but not necessarily safer. The list of post-war operations grows daily. Think about the headlines that describe places our soldiers and airmen and sailors are, all over the world: carrier groups off Taiwan, mass evacuations by United States special forces in Liberia, 22,000 troops in Bosnia, actions in Haiti, in Somalia, in Panama, in the Middle East. The list goes on and on. It is our duty, Mr. Chairman, at least in my opinion, it is our duty to properly finance these men and women who go around the world to do the great job that they have been tasked to do.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a discussion with the distinguished gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton]. As the gentleman knows, I had planned to offer an amendment which would keep in place the administrative command structure for the Army Reserve. As a senior member of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel which has jurisdiction over this matter, I think it would be beneficial to the Members if the gentleman could explain the impact of the provisions and whereby you support the provision as it is currently written in keeping the U.S. Army Reserve Command as it currently exists.

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 H.R. 1836 and the Senate amendment thereto.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 2982, introduced by our colleague, Tom Bevill, to convey the Carbon Hill National Fish Hatchery to the State of Alabama. This legislation is virtually identical to measures enacted into law last year which transferred three Federal fish hatcheries to the States of Arkansas, Iowa, and Minnesota. Under the terms of H.R. 2982, the Secretary of the Interior will convey within 180 days of enactment all rights, title, and interest to this 67-acre facility to the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. The bill also contains the standard reversionary clause the stipulates that the property will be returned to the Federal Government if it is used for any purpose other than the State's fish cultural program. This hatchery, which has been in operation for nearly 60 years, produces about one million fish each year which are used to restock ponds, lakes, and rivers throughout the Southeast. For the past 2 years, the Clinton administration has proposed to provide title to the State because Carbon Hill is no longer essential to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's nationwide hatchery program. In fact, the facility is already being operated by the State under a long- term memorandum of agreement. By enacting H.R. 2982, the Federal Government will save thousands of dollars a year in operating costs, a Federal-State partnership will be fostered, and Carbon Hill will continue to produce thousands of bluegill, channel catfish, striped bass, and walleye for recreational, stocking, and restoration efforts. I urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 2982. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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. 2982.

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

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2982) to amend the Water Resources Research Act of 1984 to extend the authorizations of appropriations through fiscal year 2000, and for other purposes.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1836) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire property in the town of East Hampton, Suffolk County, NY, for inclusion in the Amagansett National Wildlife Refuge, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.

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

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, once again I am pleased to present to the House H.R. 1836, a bill introduced by the gentleman from New York, Mike Forbes, to add a 98-acre oceanfront parcel of land to the Long Island National Wildlife Refuge. Mr. Speaker, it is obvious this bill was passed by the House on another occasion. It was sent over to the Senate, and it is back with an amendment. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the bill in its current form. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to once again present to the House H.R. 1836, a bill introduced by Congressman Mike Forbes to add a 98-acre ocean-front parcel of land to the Long Island National Wildlife Refuge. This legislation was overwhelmingly adopted in the House on April 23 of this year, and was approved by the other body on May 3. While the other body had no objection to the provisions of H.R. 1836, the text of H.R. 2005 was added to this measure and it is, therefore, necessary for the House to once again act affirmatively before sending this proposal to the President. H.R. 2005 was unanimously approved by the House on October 30, 1995, and this noncontroversial measure will correct a mapping error in the Coastal Barrier Resources System. In 1982, when unit NY-59P was created, a portion of privately owned land was incorrectly mapped as being part of an adjacent ``otherwise protected area'', the Fire Island National Seashore. This 88-acre tract is owned by a private homeowners group, the Point O'Woods Association, and has never been part of the National Seashore. This small, but important change in the Coastal Barrier Resources System has broad bipartisan support and has been endorsed by the administration. Finally, I would like to compliment the gentleman from New York [Mike Forbes] for his outstanding leadership in this matter. Mike is the author of both H.R. 1836 and H.R. 2005 and he has done an outstanding job of not only gaining support for these measures but also representing his constituents in a most effective manner. I urge an aye vote on H.R. 1836.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, let me commend the chairman for reporting what I think is a very fair rule. I cannot remember, Mr. Chairman, when there were 41 amendments made in order, almost half of which were of the minority party. I think that is quite commendable and I think it is quite fair, maybe more fair than the gentleman should have been. I would also like to remind the Members that have previously spoken from the other side that it was just 25 years ago when our defense budget amounted to about 33 or 34 percent of everything we spent through the Federal Government. Then back in the middle 1980's we got to around 30 percent, after having dipped down quite low. And today we are spending about half as much in terms of the percentage of our total expenditure on defense as we were even in 1986. So this is not a robust spending bill. This is a very lean spending bill. And I might say that some Members of the opposition party, particularly the leadership of the opposition party down at the White House, need to get realistic about where we are going with our defense policy and try to match our defense spending with that policy. We have been everywhere from Somalia and Haiti and Bosnia and the straits of Taiwan, and we are worried about Korea. We have been to the Middle East. And all of these on military excursions of one kind or another all cost money, and moneys which are intended to keep our servicemen and women in a safe condition. That is essentially what we are looking to do with this rule, followed by the bill. Early on our leadership said they would bring this bill to the House in a timely fashion, and the gentleman from New York has helped certainly to do that, and I commend him for it. We on the Armed Services Committee looked at this bill and we decided that there were some deficiencies because of the administration policy of using our defense forces in a robust way in many parts of the world, and so we added back some money that the President did not request. For example, the Service Secretaries testified that they needed more money for weapons modernization. It is in this bill. And $7.5 billion was added to end the modernization holiday which is gutting our forces and providing us with little option but to send our men and women around the world with a lack of modern weapons, which they really need. The Secretary of Defense asked for a quality of life program, and as the chairman knows, it is in this bill: A 3-percent pay increase, a 4.6-percent hike in base allowance for quarters, and a provision to aid single service members to live off post. Many Defense officials cited the need for more family housing, and it is in this bill. This is something that is extremely necessary for quality of life. And so we are very pleased to bring forth this rule as well as the provisions of the bill which will follow. Once again, I commend the chairman and also thank him for making in order the amendment which we will debate for 30 minutes.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, there is an old military saying which alerts us to expect the unexpected. This time-tested adage is as true today as we send young fighting men and women to Bosnia as it was two generations ago in World War II. On April 27, 1996, the New Jersey Exercise Tiger Association and the VFW Post 3729 will commemorate the 52d anniversary of Exercise Tiger. Exercise Tiger was designed to be a dress rehearsal for the D-Day invasion of France. But as is so common in the ``fog of war,'' the best laid plans are always subject to the unexpected, the unanticipated, the unforseen. And so it was on April 28, 1944 when an American amphibious assault force which was practicing for the D-Day invasion was suddenly attacked by German warships. The surprise attack resulted in the death of 946 men, the second highest death toll of that long and embittered war. Today, over 20,000 U.S. service men and women are serving in Bosnia in an effort to again secure peace in Europe. These dedicated individuals, like those who have served so honorably before them, have the difficult task of fulfilling the commitments made by American foreign policy makers. And like those who served in uniform over 50 years ago, the unexpected can happen at any moment with devastating effect. I wish to salute the fine men who served and died 52 years ago while conducting Exercise Tiger. There is a special kinship between those American heroes and the men and women who today are serving in Bosnia. I wish also to pay tribute to Walter Domanski of the New Jersey Exercise Tiger Association and Bill Cadmus, Senior Vice Commander of VFW Post 3729. These two fine individuals are ``keepers of the flame,'' ensuring that Americans will remember and reflect on the sacrifices that our military has made and continues to make on our behalf.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, some opponents of this bill would like everyone to believe that its only purpose is to permit fishing and hunting in our National Wildlife Refuge System. This is simply not true. This is a comprehensive bill that will improve and enhance wildlife management of the national wildlife refuges throughout our entire country. This bill addresses a broad range of concerns expressed in a variety of Government reports going back 25 years about the need for better, more uniform system-wide management of refuges. For the first time, this bill establishes a system-wide mission statement. Those purposes include not only compatible fish and wildlife oriented recreation, including fishing and hunting, it also includes wildlife observation and environmental education and also conservation management, restoration of fish and wildlife, the preservation of endangered species and the implementation of the international treaty obligations regarding fish and wildlife. Those are a broad-ranging set of objectives that this reform bill has inherent within it. The bill also gives the Secretary of the Interior comprehensive direction on the administration of the system and establishes a management planning process that will be uniform throughout the system, something that has been sorely needed in my opinion for many years. It assures public involvement in the planning process and requires that those plans be reviewed at least every 15 years. One aspect of the bill that I believe is critically important is the requirement that refuges remain open until closed. Let me explain why I believe this section of the law is critically important. Under the system which currently exists, as refuges expand or as new refuges are created, the minute the Fish and Wildlife Service or the Federal Government takes title to land, it is closed to all wildlife-related public uses. I do not believe that it is anyone's intent that that happen. We changed the provisions so that, when the Fish and Wildlife Service assumes title and assumes, therefore, the management of new lands, that these historic wildlife-related uses continue to occur until a management plan is adopted. This is a very important change because in some areas of the country, the refuge system, which at one time enjoyed almost unanimous public support, today the system does not enjoy and the plans do not enjoy unanimous public support because the minute someone, the minute the refuge system acquires additional land, it is closed to hunting and fishing and bird watching and any other use that is related to wildlife pursuits. So this bill, I believe, is important for that reason and it should be considered, I think, one of the very important provisions. This bill also codifies the existing regulatory definition of ``compatible use'' that the Fish and Wildlife Service has obviously used for many years. The committee expects that there will be some wildlife refuges, particularly in urban areas, that will not be appropriate settings for all forms of wildlife-dependent recreation. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that this measure will greatly change the current management system. Finally, this bill establishes a broad goal of wildlife protection for our refuge system, establishes purposes that reflect the current goals of the system, institutes a long overdue systemwide comprehensive planning process, and assures that taxpayers who purchase the refuge lands can utilize them in many legitimate ways. This bill merits your support, and I obviously think that everyone should vote for it. I would just conclude, Mr. Chairman, by mentioning that there are a broad, a large number, a broad array of organizations that support this bill. For example, let me just read some of them, the American Sportfishing Association, the California Waterfowl Association, Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Mzuri Wildlife Foundation, the National Wild Turkey Federation, the New Jersey Federation of Sportsmen, the North American Waterfowl Federation, Quail Unlimited, the Ruffed Grouse Society, Safari Club International, Wildlife Forever, and the Wildlife Legislative Fund of America. Mr. Chairman, I think that these organizations know that this is a good bill. I believe it is a good bill. I incidentally think it will even be enhanced by the Boehlert amendment when it is offered. I urge everyone to support the bill.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman for yielding back the balance of his time. Mr. Speaker, let me just make a couple of points. First, Mr. Speaker, I believe that inasmuch as this bill has made it to the level that it has in this debate, and inasmuch as I think Members on both sides of the aisle understand how important it is to protect the environmental ecosystems in all coastal areas around our state, that the bill certainly deserves the full support of all Members of the House. I hope it will pass unopposed. I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that in states like New Jersey, where the gentleman from New Jersey, [Mr. Pallone] and I come from, this bill take on enormous importance, because in highly populated areas like our State, east of the Garden State Parkway and to the Atlantic ocean, the people who reside in those areas and the wildlife that reside there and the wildlife that reside in the ocean, for that matter, participate in a unabashed way in being able to use those ecosystems which are protected through this act. I must also say, Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat disappointed by the tenor of this debate, because we have tried to approach this matter from the beginning, in the subcommittee and thereafter, as a bipartisan issue. As a matter of fact, I think many members of the subcommittee on both sides are proud to have participated in the various debates that have led us to today. So, Mr. Speaker, without further ado, I ask that the vote be considered at this point, and again I ask for the affirmative support by Members on both sides of the aisle.

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

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for being here today to manage this bill and for the very important role that he played in supporting this bill to get it here. I would also like to say to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds], I thank him for his very fine cooperation on this and many other bills we have worked on together during his tenure here. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2160, the Cooperative Fisheries Management Act. This legislation will reauthorize two important fishery Acts: the Inter-jurisdictional Fisheries Act and the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act. These two acts have done an exceptional job of getting the States, the Federal Government, non-Federal interests and, in some cases, foreign nations to cooperate in the management of transboundary fishery resources. Both of these acts use grant money to fund research done by the States, interstate commissions, or other interested parties. This allows us to gain a greater understanding of the resource and improve our management techniques. By reauthorizing these acts, we are demonstrating our commitment to the survival and longevity of these unique fishery resources. Without cooperative management, these resources will likely become depleted, and some species could become extinct. I think it is important to note that we have reduced authorization levels for both of these programs by almost 50 percent. Mr. Speaker, this is an important piece of legislation and I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on H.R. 2160.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1772) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire certain interests in the Waihee Marsh for inclusion in the Oahu National Wildlife Refuge Complex, as amended.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak about H.R. 1772, the Oahu National Wildlife Refuge Complex Act, introduced by Congresswoman Patsy Mink. H.R. 1772 would facilitate an agreement to allow the Secretary of the Interior to add 36 acres of wetlands to the Oahu National Wildlife Refuge Complex. These wetlands are home to several threatened and endangered species including the Hawaiian stilt, Hawaiian coot, and Hawaiian duck. The wetlands also capture and retain stormwater runoff. This bill provides protection for the fragile Hawaiian ecosystem and I urge all Members to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentlewoman on the fine job she has done in putting this bill together and in helping us to bring it to the floor.

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 object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House is considering H.R. 1836, the Amagansett National Wildlife Refuge Act, which was introduced by Representative Michael Forbes. H.R. 1836 would allow the Secretary of the Interior to acquire a 98- acre ocean-front parcel of land in Montauk, East Hampton Town, NY, known as Shadmoor. This parcel contains one of the largest populations of New York State's most endangered plant, the sandplain gerardia. The Shadmoor property represents valuable habitat for this endangered plant. I urge all Members to support the legislation.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2660, the Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge Act, introduced by Representative Jim McCrery. H.R. 2660 would increase the authorization level for the Tensas River National Wildlife Refuge from $10 million to $20 million, and would make those funds available as of October 1 last year. This increase is necessary to cover the costs of buying critical habitat for the threatened Louisiana black bear. It is imperative that this legislation move forward, so the management plan for the threatened black bear can continue to be implemented. We in Congress have been discussing prevention in the context of the Endangered Species Act. Here is a case where public input has resulted in the prevention of endangerment. This legislation deserves all our support.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding this time to me. I certainly will not use anywhere near 5 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Barrett], that this is obviously the result of a good deal of consideration by a lot of people, and I am pleased that the gentleman has brought this bill to us, which has obviously moved through the committee and is now here for a vote on the floor. The Fish and Wildlife Service has found nothing significant, that the North Platte wildlife refuge adds nothing, in their words, significant toward the refuge or the National Refuge System purposes and goals. And it is the position of the Department of the Interior to support the bill as well. So I congratulate the gentleman on the fine job that he has done in ushering this to the House floor, and I am sure it will pass. Congratulations. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2679, the North Platte National Wildlife Refuge Act, which was introduced by Representative Bill Barrett. H.R. 2679 would remove about 2,470 acres of land from the North Platte National Wildlife Refuge, which the Fish and Wildlife Service has found to provide ``nothing significant towards the Refuge or the National Refuge System purposes and goals.'' The title to these lands would remain with the Federal Government, and they would be managed by the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission through a lease with the Bureau of Reclamation. I think it is important that when the Fish and Wildlife Service recognizes that a refuge is no longer serving the function for which it was founded, it takes steps to remove the land from the Refuge System. This bill is strongly supported by the Department of the Interior, and I urge all Members to support it.