Jim Saxton

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. That is correct, under this legislation. However, I do want to point out that they could have such authority under some other existing law. This provision will not give them any such authority.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, that too is correct.

Mr. SAXTON. If the gentleman from New York will continue to yield, Mr. Speaker, that is also correct.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Eastern Long Island, NY [Mr. Forbes]. (Mr. FORBES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Sanibel, FL [Mr. Goss], who, as Mayor of that community, helped to initiate and found Florida's coastal zone management program. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today in support of the tax limitation amendment requiring a supermajority to raise taxes, and I commend the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] for his hard work and determination in bringing this amendment to the floor tonight. I am also proud to say that in 1991, along with my colleague from Texas, I was one of the first Members to bring this supermajority voting requirement to the American people's attention. Tonight we bring it to the attention of the American people once again, this time in anticipation of passing the measure. For many years we have known that a fundamental change in the way Congress does business is needed, and this is an example of the kind of change that we sincerely believe is needed. Currently it is much easier to raise taxes on the hard-working American people than it is to cut spending, and so we have seen year in and year out as the budget went up, and 1990 is a good example, we increased taxes. In 1993 once again the majority increased taxes, and still we have a deficit. Let me just say what I think the real issue is here. It is demonstrated by this chart on my left. Today there are 10 States that have supermajority requirements for raising taxes. They happen to be Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and South Dakota. Four of those States have a two-thirds supermajority requirement, 3 have a three-fifths, and 3 have a three-fourths requirement. This chart demonstrates quite clearly that in the States on average that have a supermajority requirement, that growth is much lower in government than in States that have no supermajority requirement, that is, growth in spending. So, of course, that makes us believe that the same pattern would hold true within the Federal Government. If we went on the street today and asked almost any American, the great majority would say that government is too big, it is too burdensome, it is growing too fast, it is too overwhelming on the American people, and taxes are too high. So this provision creates a situation in which both parties will realize a major objective that we promise the American people every year, lower taxes. How does this work? It is very simple. We are trying to restore some balance to the way we operate here in the Congress, the pressures for spending. Just take, for example, a State that wants to build a highway or a series of highways. There is a very focused effort by a number of special interest groups to get those highways built. There are people who want to get quicker from point A to point B, and that is very important for them for their morning and afternoon commute to and from work. They are focused on those projects. There are labor unions who want jobs; they are focused on those jobs. There are contractors and business people who will make a profit, and they are focused on those projects. So an intense lobbying effort takes place because of that focus. Now, nobody wants higher taxes. But how deeply do the American people have an opportunity to lobby for lower taxes? Only on the surface, only at election time. They do not have lobbyists in this town, like the special interest groups. And so it seems to me that by requiring a larger vote known as a supermajority, we put some balance back in the system to achieve what these 10 smart-minded States have been able to accomplish. That is slower growth in their governments, and slower growth is what both parties have promised the American people in this House.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, Mr. LaTourette intends to introduce a bill that will curtail the spread of non-native aquatic species in our Nation's waters. As you know, I am from New Jersey and this issue is of particular importance to our State. Over 130 miles of coastline and with delicate estuary and river ecosystems, non-native aquatic species could destroy our environment. This is already happening in Mr. LaTourette's district on Ohio. New Jersey shares coast line with States that are already suffering the horrors of these forms of biological pollution. In addition, these non-native species, such as the zebra mussel, tapeworms effecting trout in the Mississippi River, and the green clam which harms steamer clam production in the Gulf of Maine, cost us millions of dollars in lost revenue and increased costs to businesses. This bill establishes national guidelines for the removal and cleansing of shipping ballast water to stop the accidental introduction of non-native aquatic species into ecosystems. This is important to my State which has extremely active ports in the Newark area as well as on the Delaware River, and since, by weight, 98 percent of all U.S. international commerce occurs by shipping, this is a problem about which every coastal and Great Lakes Member should be concerned. This bill takes a pro-active approach to environmental legislation in its efforts to address potential environmental disasters before they begin. Pro-active solutions give us reasoned, scientifically sound, less expensive, more effective, and more efficient solutions than reactive measures. I urge your support for this important bill.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I take out this special order this afternoon to bring to the attention of my colleagues a very, very important and a very, very unhappy circumstance that has occurred in my district. Many of you may have watched the CBS Evening News last night and observed an alarming segment of the news about a situation in Toms River, NJ. Toms River is in Dover Township in Ocean County. Unfortunately, over the past several years, the rate of brain and central nervous system cancers in children has increased very dramatically. As a matter of fact, it has increased far beyond what would be expected if you looked at some kind of a national average or at a normal town. In Ocean County itself, as a matter of fact, 54 children have been diagnosed with brain or central nervous system cancer since between 1979 and 1991, just those several years. This is a rate which is far in excess of what we would expect to find. In Toms River, there were eight children diagnosed with those types of cancers when you would expect an average of maybe two. So this is obviously many times higher than we would expect and has created a very difficult situation and, of course, has frightened many of us who live in that area. Back in New Jersey, there are a number of efforts under way to try and do something about this, about this situation, and of course, before we can do anything about it, the situation has to be defined so that we can know what caused it. There are citizens groups which have formed. For example, there is a citizens group which is very, very active which is know as Oceans of Love. Its leader, a lady by the name of Linda Gillick, who has been very active over the years, has done much good for families that have been affected. As a matter of fact, here 17-year-old son, Michael, is one of the children that is affected by this condition. Also back in New Jersey, State Senator Andrew Ciesla and his two running mates in the State assembly, Assemblyman Holzapsef and Assemblyman Wolfe, have introduced legislation to provide $400,000 to go toward a definition of the problem, to try to study the situation, to find out what it is that may have caused the situation to occur. Here in the Congress, on a bipartisan basis, we are taking steps to try to do likewise. The administration has been brought into this, the Clinton administration has been brought into this, and I understand there is a good possibility that assets of the Federal Government will be made available through the administration. Yesterday, I, together with a number of other concerned Members of Congress, introduced legislation here to match the State bill of $400,000, so we would have a total of $800,000 to look at this problem and provide a study and report so we can take corrective measures once we know what has happened. Mr. Speaker, as this bill proceeds through the legislative channels here in Washington, I hope that we will have support, and I am sure we will have support, of Members from both sides of the aisle. This is obviously a situation which must be corrected. There are some suspected carcinogens in the area which need to be looked at, which need to be studied, which may be the root cause. Of course, this needs to be looked at more carefully in order to make sure that we know what it is that is happening. Last night there was a meeting in the township, and 1,000 community members showed up to express their concern. If you could read the accounts of that or hear from the people who were there, you would understand just how difficult and frightening this situation is. So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that we will be able to move with dispatch, either through the administration or through the Congress or both, to bring to bear the assets, the financial capabilities, and the personnel which are embodied in the Federal Government, in order to quickly and efficiently define this situation, define a solution to the situation, and get this episode behind us. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to express these thoughts here this afternoon.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor and a privilege to pay tribute to my good friend, Ocean County Freeholder and long-time mayor of Long Beach Township, James J. Mancini. Freeholder Jim Mancini, as chairman of the Ocean County Office on Aging, serves the largest senior population in the State of New Jersey. Ocean County's nutrition sites, transportation programs for the elderly and senior outreach programs are considered among the finest in our State. Freeholder Mancini has worked closely with me through the years in our effort to preserve and protect such programs as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. His support has been invaluable. As liaison to the Ocean County Library Commission, Freeholder Mancini has worked tirelessly to expand the system to 17 branches throughout the county. A former member of New Jersey's General Assembly, he continues to serve as mayor of Long Beach Township, a position he has held for 28 years. This dedicated public servant also serves as chairman of the board of Southern Ocean County Hospital and as vice president of the Long Beach Island St. Francis Community Center. The civic associations to which he has devoted many hours are too numerous to mention. All these associations and activities were carried out while always putting his wife, Madeline, and their nine children first. The residents of Long Beach Township pay him a great tribute by dedicating their municipal facility in his honor and name. Jim Mancini represents what is so very good about our country--he is an honorable man, a family man, a man who is willing to go the extra mile for what is right. He has proven the point of the old saying, ``If you want something done, give the job to a busy person.'' I offer him my personal thanks and the gratitude of all those he has so faithfully served throughout the years. As he celebrates his 70th birthday among family and friends, I wish him all the best that life can offer.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of the bill, H.R. 1963.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. It is an honor and a privilege to pay tribute to my good friend, Ocean County Freeholder and long-time mayor of Long Beach Township, James J. Mancini. Freeholder Jim Mancini, as chairman of the Ocean County Office on Aging, serves the largest senior population in the State of New Jersey. Ocean County's nutrition sites, transportation programs for the elderly, and senior outreach programs are considered among the finest in our State. Freeholder Mancini has worked closely with me through the years in our effort to preserve and protect such programs as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. His support has been invaluable. As liaison to the Ocean County Library Commission, Freeholder Mancini has worked tirelessly to expand the system to 17 branches throughout the county. A former member of New Jersey's General Assembly, he continues to serve as mayor of Long Beach Township, a position he has held for 28 years. This dedicated public servant also serves as chairman of the board of Southern Ocean County Hospital and as vice president of the Long Beach Island, St. Francis Community Center. The civic associations to which he has devoted many hours are too numerous to mention. All these associations and activities were carried out while always putting his wife, Madeline, and their nine children first. The residents of Long Beach Township pay him a great tribute by dedicating their municipal facility in his honor and name. Jim Mancini represents what is so very good about our country--he is an honorable man, a family man, a man who is willing to go the extra mile for what is right. He has proven the point of the old saying, ``If you want something done, give the job to a busy person.'' I offer him my personal thanks and the gratitude of all those he has so faithfully served throughout the years. As he celebrates his 70th birthday among family and friends, I wish him all the best that life can offer.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to shed some light on this issue in terms of the recent history of what we have been through, vis- a-vis the administration and claims made by the administration. As everybody knows, this rule is here, and the subsequent legislation, because the administration has stated that come February 26, they will be unable, because of the way the law is written, to cut the checks for Social Security beneficiaries. Obviously, everybody on our side of the aisle and, I assume, everybody on the other side of the aisle wants people to get their Social Security checks come the last day of this month or the first day of next. Now, the recent history of what this administration has done is that this action by the administration, as claimed by the administration, is simply not unparalleled. On November 12 and 13 and 14 of this year, Secretary Rubin told us and the American people that we had to pass a debt ceiling because default on our inability to pay our bills would be unthinkable, and we agreed. What Secretary Rubin did not tell the American people was that there was already a plan in place to permit the United States Government to pay its bills by borrowing from trust funds. In other words, the Secretary went out of his way to create a situation in which the American people thought that the United States Government was going to default, knowing full well the entire time that they had been working since June 24 at least to put in place a mechanism and a plan whereby the trust funds would be tapped to avoid default and still claiming to tell us, the Congress of the United States and the American people, that we were going to face a horrible default. Of course they wanted a clean debt ceiling. Now we hear just a few days ago that if we do not pass a clean debt ceiling, we will not be able to send out the Social Security checks. We are not going to let that happen. If there is a problem with the law, this bill straightens it out. We know that it is not a dollars problem. We know there is enough money there to do it. So the Secretary now claims that under the statutes as they presently exist, he does not have the flexibility to send out the Social Security checks for older Americans, Social Security beneficiaries, and therefore, we are now in another state of alarm where we have to pass a clean debt ceiling. This bill fixes the problem for the Secretary that he claims he has. I doubt if there is really a problem there any more than there was a real problem the last time around. But in this event, in this case, the rule permits the consideration of a bill to make sure that there is no reason why the Social Security checks cannot be mailed out.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to wish a good friend and loyal public servant, Phil Rubenstein, best wishes as he celebrates his 80th birthday. Phil has devoted 53 years to public service within the United States and Ocean County governments. An example to us all, Phil's dedication and creativity have improved the lives of many Americans. Of course, all commentary aside, Phil Rubenstein's record speaks for itself. From 1943 to 1954 Phil served as the Assistant Chief of the Service Division of the Veterans Administration. He continued his service until 1974 by working as a Social Security Representative in the Northeast. Phil retired from the Federal Civil Service but continued to honorably serve the citizens of Ocean County, New Jersey by assuming the directorship of the Ocean County Office on Aging. As the director of the Ocean County Office on Aging, Phil has left an indelible impression on our local community an on the lives of senior citizens across the nation. A few of his more notable accomplishments include: Creating free mammography and prostate cancer screening programs; creating a complete senior citizen complex that among other things established nutrition sites, senior centers, home delivered meal programs, and other outreach programs; the creation of the Ocean County Handicapped and Elderly Transportation Service. As I deliver these words of praise, I realize that I am only one voice of many that have done likewise. Phil has received, among others, awards from the Governor for ``Outstanding Achievement for Innovative Programs for the Elderly'', from the New Jersey Association of Freeholders for ``Outstanding Service'', from the Ocean County Board of Chosen Freeholders for ``Distinguished'', and three distinguished Federal Service Awards. The people who probably thank Phil the most, however, are all of those who benefit from the results of his hard work. Most notable are the senior citizens who need access to transportation to receive medical care. Every day over 650 people across the Nation are able to utilize this service. I could continue with a litany of other awards and accomplishments that Phil has earned. Instead, I will end here and say this. Phil, on this day--the day before your 80th birthday--I give you my best wishes and hopes for another rewarding and successful year. Happy birthday.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise with some reservation to support this bill, reservations which have been adequately expressed by previous speakers. Mr. Speaker, it shouldn't have had to come to this. We shouldn't have to be revisiting the same issue over and over again. And yet, here we are 6 weeks after spending United States troops to Bosnia voting again on whether we should properly support American service men and women-- men and women who are repeatedly sent to the far corners of the world to settle other people's conflicts. In my home district, I have the honor of representing the fine men and women who serve at Fort Dix and McGuire Air Force Base and Lakehurst Naval War Center. In the tradition of those who served before them, these dedicated individuals responded within hours to the President's decision to deploy troops to Bosnia. Guard and Reserve soldiers were readied at Fort Dix; supplies were flown out of and through McGuire; air crews were sent to Europe and the Balkans to ensure our forces were well equipped and supported. While many of these service members have personal misgivings about the mission, they put aside those doubts, saluted smartly, and got on with the business at hand. With little or no notice, these men and women left their homes and families to an extremely uncertain situation. They mobilized just as Christmas celebrations were beginning, leaving behind sons and daughters, spouses, and mothers and fathers to carry on as best they could. These men and women deserve our support. They deserve the full pay raise which we promised; they deserve the increase in the basic allowance benefit; and they deserve the COLA equity fix contained in this bill. Let's do the right thing. Let's pass the rule and pass this Defense authorization bill. We are duty-bound to do no less.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I came down out of my apartment this morning and picked up the Washington Post on the front porch and, as I looked through it, I turned finally to page A- 11 and in the Washington Post was this article. It says, ``On Balance, Budget Deal Could Offer a $1,000 Bonus'' to each family in America. Then a few minutes ago, frankly, I had not read it, but a few minutes ago I heard the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers] talking about the effect of the balanced budget, the effect that it would have on our families by relieving a payment that they would have to make to the Federal Government each and every year to pay the interest on the national debt. I went back and read this and it says something different, and I will tell my colleagues about it in a minute, but I think it is very important to put this in the context of what the gentleman was talking about. See, the national debt has risen to approximately $5 trillion. Now, that for me and my colleagues, for me at least, that is an incomprehensible figure. I do not know, I cannot put $5 trillion into context. But when you look at it, as the gentleman from Michigan was, what he was saying is that if you take the $5 trillion national debt and figure out what each of our share of that is; in other words, divide $5 trillion by 260 million people which represents the number of people that live in our country, we find out that each of our share of the national debt is about $18,000. Now, to bring that just a little closer to home, we can all relate to this. If we went down to the bank, if we went to our hometown bank and we said ``I need for some purpose to borrow $18,000,'' the banker would say, fill out the application, and we need to make you aware, because the State and Federal laws provide that we disclose to you, that it is going to cost you an annual sum, an interest payment. And if on your $18,000 we charge you 7 percent interest, 7 percent of 18,000, if I am doing my math right, is close to $1,200 a year. Mr. Speaker, what that means is that for each of our individual shares of the national debt, which is $18,000, just like we would have to pay the bank interest, we have to pay our share of the interest on the national debt. So, when we make out our income tax checks on April 15 of each year, somewhere between $1,100 and $1,200, which the gentleman from Michigan pointed out correctly, goes out of each of our pockets to pay the interest on this debt that we have further accumulated. On to this article, ``On Balance, the Budget Deal Could Offer a $1,000 Bonus.'' This is alluding to the fact that there are other savings which families will be able to reap. For example, because of lower national debt, each family will save an average of $500 a year by the year 2002. In addition to that, because interest rates will drop according to most economists by about 2 percent, according to most estimates, that the economy will begin to grow, and economists project that additional income will be earned by families of somewhere between $400 and $600 a year. Take the lower figure. Just take the $400. Then they say in addition to that, because interest rates will be lower, our mortgages, our mortgage payments will be lower; our car payments will be lower; our student loan payments will be lower. That would amount to, on average, another $100. So, if we add $500 in savings to $400 in savings to another $100 in savings, in addition to the check we would no longer have to write to the Federal Government of $1,100 or $1,200 a year, this article says that we would get an additional bonus of about, on average, $1,000 per family. Mr. Speaker, this begins to make a real difference to the middle- class families that I represent. An additional couple of thousand dollars of savings a year amounts to real money. It is our job. This is what this debate has really been all about for all of these months for the last year. We have been trying to arrive at a consensus between Republicans and Democrats as to how we can balance the budget to save American families these moneys. So, I commend this article to everyone's reading. It is on page A-11 of today's Washington Post written by Steven Pearlstein and it is news analysis. I think it is very accurate and I think it is something that we should be able to relate to on an individual basis, dealing with the national debt, how it affects each and every one of the families that I represent and that my colleagues represent. So, Mr. Speaker, let us proceed together. We have bickered long enough about this subject. It is too important. The President knows it. He has committed to balancing the budget in 7 years using what we here in Washington call real numbers, what my constituents call numbers without smoke and mirrors, and we have also agreed to that on, I think, both sides of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, let us proceed to do it so that American families can actually realize the bonus that is pointed out in this article. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following newspaper article for the Record: [From the Washington Post, Jan. 4, 1996] On Balance, Budget Deal Could Offer a $1,000 Bonus (By Steven Pearlstein) With the budget crisis slowly suffocating Washington and mystifying the rest of the country, it may be easy to overlook the payoff if President Clinton and leaders of the Republican Congress agree on a plan that balances the budget. The benefits could total roughly $1,000 a year for every American family, according to economists and budget analysts. The math goes something like this: Balancing the budget stems the flow of income that now runs from future generations to our own. At today's interest rates, the $1 trillion in government debt that would be avoided by gradually eliminating the deficit over the next seven years would save taxpayers $60 billion in interest payments every year. That works out to an average of $500 a year for every household beginning in 2002--money that could be used to reduce taxes or increase the government services they receive. Balancing the budget also should generate extra economic growth from lower interest rates and a higher national savings rate. Even if the effect is just an additional 0.1 percent in output each year, as the Congressional Budget Office predicts, it would boost national income by one percentage point by the end of a decade--$400 for the average household. Additionally, the CBO calculates that balancing the budget will reduce prevailing interest rates by about 1.5 percent. Some of that reduction already is reflected in market rates, but with average household indebtedness now running around $45,000, including mortgages, lower rates eventually could reduce interest payments by $675 a year per family. But not all of those savings will make their way to our bank accounts. That's because the flip side of interest savings for borrowers is a corresponding reduction in interest income for savers. Over the course of a lifetime savers and borrowers turn out to be many of the same Americans. But even so, it's pretty safe to figure about another $100 annual bonus per family for balancing the budget. All told, it's worth about $1,000 a year to our children and grandchildren for us to cut back on our consumption of government subsidies and services. ``From an economic standpoint, everything else about this budget debate is insignificant,'' says William Niskanen, President Reagan's economic adviser and now chairman of the Cato Institute. But while the future payoff is fairly clear, the process of getting there is not without pain. Nobody has yet invented a way to suck a trillion dollars out of the economy over seven years without anyone noticing. Indeed, some economists predict if spending is cut too fast, it could tip the economy into recession. Even if the economy can withstand the shock of sharply reduced government spending, there are two groups of people for whom this budget debate has serious consequences: the poor and the elderly. The big nut to be cracked is health care costs, which effectively represent half of the policy dispute between the president and the Republican Congress. What they're really wrestling with is how to ration medical care for the 60 million Americans who rely on government to pay for it. Although rationing is a dirty work in politics, it goes on every day all over the United States, where more than half the working population is now enrolled in some form of managed health care plan. The key feature of these plans is that a group of doctors and hospitals agrees to provide all medically necessary services for a fixed fee per person per year. This fixed-fee concept has helped slow the medical inflation rate to its present 4 percent. But the government's two big health care programs, Medicare and Medicaid, continue to operate largely on the blank check philosophy of health insurance, giving the poor and elderly free reign to consume whatever health services they think they need and reimbursing doctors and hospitals according to a fee schedule. Both Clinton and Congress have effectively embraced the idea of extending the managed-care concept to Medicare and Medicaid. What the fuss is all about is how--and how fast. The other big sticking point concerns the rest of the government's social safety net. While just about everyone concedes that welfare programs have largely failed to end poverty, few can point to alternative programs that work much better. Any reform, then, is something of a leap into the unknown, and at the heart of the budget battle is the question of exactly how big a leap to take. It was candidate Clinton who first promised to end welfare as we know it, and now the Republican Congress has gone him one better. Its proposal would fold welfare, food stamps and a panoply of other federal programs into one, consolidated grant to be sent off to each statehouse. The Republican plan is exquisitely precise on how and when welfare mothers will be forced off the dole, but considerably more vague on exactly how these people will find jobs or how they will pay for day care and health care even if they do. ``What concerns me in all this is the treatment of the poor,'' says Charles Schultze of the Brookings Institution, the top economic adviser to President Carter. ``For them this represents a terribly risky roll of the dice--one that I think is likely to come out wrong.'' It is not only economists with Democratic leanings who worry about the budgetary impact on the poor. Listen to Herbert Stein, an analyst at the American Enterprise Institute and an economic adviser to President Nixon: ``If you cut Medicaid and welfare and food stamps, will these people descend into misery or straighten up, fly right, get a job and wind up with an apartment on Park Avenue? Frankly, I think it's a risky strategy for the very poorest people. I think many won't be able to adjust successfully.'' But if doing something is risky, so is doing nothing. Even the supposedly harsh measures proposed by the Republicans will keep the federal budget in balance only for the first decade or so of the 21st century. After that, demographic forces will once again overwhelm the Treasury as the giant baby boom generation moves into its retirement years, expecting the same level of pensions and health care as the generation that preceded it. Without further increases in taxes or reductions in Social Security and Medicare benefits, the government is now projected to once again find itself drowning in red ink. ``Even if we can balance the budget in the next few years, it is really only the first step,'' warns Stanford University's Michael Boskin, top economist in the Bush White House. ``What lies beyond the year 2002 simply dwarfs what we are dealing with here.'' Put another way, if you think this budget battle is tough, wait till next time.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to override the President's veto. While it is true that the fiscal year 1996 Interior appropriation bill does not provide for the same level of funding we have seen in previous years, it does provide funding for such important functions as management of our Nation's parks and refuges which, I think, is very, very important. The American people want a balanced budget, and all areas of the Government must contribute toward this goal, and they want their parks and refuges open. As long as the President's veto is able to stand, our Nation's treasured 369 parks and 504 refuges will remain closed, and the people who we hire to manage them will be out of work. These parks and refuges are funded by millions of American taxpayers' dollars who paid for them with entrance fees, excise taxes, duck stamps and income tax payments. It is unfair for the American people to continue to be shut out of these lands. No bill is perfect. Would I write this one differently? Yes, I would. But it does achieve two primary goals: It provides funding to maintain the park and refuge system, and it moves us toward the all-important goal of a balanced budget. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' so Americans can once again have access to the parks and refuges for which they have paid.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Resources. (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, earlier this afternoon the House Republican Conference passed by a unanimous majority a resolution calling on Speaker Gingrich and Leader Dole to proceed with uninterrupted negotiations until this budget matter is resolved. I would like to be home with my family, as I am sure all of you would, but I think there are some matters that take precedence from time to time, and in this case in a historic time, over matters of personal interest. This is a matter of personal interest to many Americans across the country. Now, when we talk about the national debt and that it is $5 trillion, it is kind of easy for people's eyes to glaze over because none of us can relate to a sum of money that is that large. So sometimes we say, well, if you divided it by 280 million, you could see how much that is for each man, woman, and child in the country. Of course, that number of $18,000 for each of us, our share of the responsibility; but that is somewhere off somewhere else, and we do not have to worry abut it immediately. I would say to all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, it is important to stay here and keep these negotiations going, which I am convinced we are going to do, because April 15 comes around every year, and look at it this way: If you went to the bank or if I went to the bank to get a loan and, let us say, I borrowed $18,000 and the bank was kind enough to make that loan to me, they would charge me interest, and that interest probably would be in the neighborhood of 6 or 7 or 8 percent, depending on conditions at the time. And that would cost me, if it were 7 percent, that would cost me $1,260 a year as an individual in interest. Now, I would submit to you that when America's families sit down at the kitchen table and fill out their income tax forms each year, they write a check for the interest on $18,000, which is probably about 7 percent, and send the check for each member of the family for $1,260 to Washington, DC, so that we can pay our interest on the national debt. So it is something that families relate to, and it is something that has a monetary pocketbook-type importance to American families. Recently the Joint Economic Committee did a report, and published it, on further costs to the American family. This chart represents the cost of not balancing the budget to each American family for things other than interest on the national debt, an additional $2,308. Let me just suggest how we got to that figure. Most families have a mortgage on their house; not everybody, but most families have a mortgage on their house. It would not be unusual today to have a mortgage for, say, $100,000. The economists tell us that the interest on mortgage rates would be reduced by about 2.2 percent a year, in other words, coming down from an average of about 8 percent to about 6 percent; and that would be pretty neat, amounting to a savings of $1,456 a year for a family. That is not bad by anybody's standards. It is not unusual also for middle-class families to have students in school, and it is not unusual for them to have a loan to send that student to school. If we got that interest rate reduction because we balanced the budget, families would save an additional $50 a year. It is not unusual for families to have car loans, either; $15,000 would be a modest car loan today, and if we got that 2 percent reduction in interest because we balanced the budget, the family would save an additional $108 a year. Now, part of the Republican tax cut package that the Democrats have referred to here as cuts for the rich, part of that package, a substantial part of that package, is a $500-per-child tax credit; and so if our family that we are talking about had one child, they would save an additional $500 because they would get the child deduction. So all of these things added together, plus what we might anticipate in higher wages and more jobs, which could produce an economic growth which some estimate could be just under $200 a year for this family, another $194, all adding up to over $2,300 a year in savings for the family. So if we balance the budget and people did not have to send their $1,200 to Washington for each member of the family to pay interest on the national debt, and if we arrived at savings something like this, we would have a very significant savings for each family. That is why it is important to balance the budget. That is why we released this JEC report. We would be happy to send it out to any Member or anyone else who wants this report, simply by calling my office.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, as we draw to a close of 1995 I thought it appropriate to once again remember the 50th anniversary of World War II. Our Nation owes deep gratitude to the men and women who proudly served our country during its time of need. One such veteran, a constituent of the Third District of New Jersey, Harold Loeffler, served aboard the USS Missouri during World War II. While serving on the Missouri, Mr. Loeffler witnessed the signing of the Japanese surrender. In a letter by Mr. Loeffler to my office, he expressed his thoughts on the battleship and the war. I have included his letter and a history of the USS Missouri, as it appeared in the commemoratorive program honoring the battleship, 10-2-95, so that they may help us remember our victory 50 years ago. We Are the Last We are the last. After we are gone there will be no more. No one will follow in our wake. For over 100 years we were the pride of the Navy. We were battleship sailors!!! We were with Dewey at Manilla. We died on the Maine in Havana. We manned the dreadnaughts and sailed around the world in Teddy Roosevelt's Great White Fleet. We patrolled the Atlantic during the ``War To End All Wars'' as the 6th Battle Squadron in the British Grand Fleet. As the battleships grew larger we grew with them becoming more technically skilled as improvements in armament, engineering and communciations advanced. As technology progressed, we progressed to be the finest sailors in the world. . . . Battleship Sailors! Then came Pearl Harbor. We gallantly fought off the sneak attack. We saved what we could to fight another day, but our losses were devastating. Every battleship sustained damage. The Arizona became a water mausoleum for her ghostly heroic crew. Fittingly, when the end came, the surrender instruments were signed aboard a battleship! Extended life was given battleships with Korea, Nam, the Mid-East and Desert Storm and now they are needed no more. The last were removed from the Naval Registry in August 1995. We are the last. After we are gone there will be no more. No one will follow in our wake. For over 100 years we were the pride of the Navy. We were BATTLESHIP SAILORS! History of the U.S.S. Missouri (BB-63) The U.S.S. MISSOURI was built by the Navy Yard, New York, her keel being laid on 6 January 1941. She was Christened by Miss Margaret Truman on 29 January 1944, and placed in full commission by the Commandant Navy Yard, New York on Sunday, 11 June 1944. Captain William M. Callaghan, U.S. Navy, accepted the ship and assumed command. The ship remained in New York Harbor until 3 August 1944, then operated in Chesapeake Bay until 21 August 1944. On that date the U.S.S. MISSOURI departed for the Gulf of Paria, Naval Operations Base, Trinidad, B.W.I., arriving on 25 August 1944. The ship conducted gunnery, flight, engineering and other shakedown exercises in the area until 17 September 1944. MISSOURI then returned to New York. The ship remained in New York Harbor until final departure with Task Group 27.7 on 11 November 1944 for Cristobal Canal Zone. Transited the Panama Canal and arrived in Balboa on 18 November on which date the ship joined the Pacific Fleet. Departure from the Panama Canal Zone was in company with Task Unit 12.7.1 on 19 November and the ship arrived in San Francisco Bay on 28 November. The U.S.S. MISSOURI escorted by the destroyers BAILEY and TERRY departed San Francisco on 18 December 1944 as Task Unit 12.7.1 and entered Pearl Harbor, T.H. on 24 December 1944. The U.S.S. MISSOURI as part of Task Unit 12.5.9 departed Pearl Harbor on 1 January 1945 headed westward. On 13 January 1945 the MISSOURI arrived at Ulithi, Western Caroline Islands and reported to Commander Third Fleet for duty and on 26 January to Commander Fifth Fleet. The ship operated from Ulithi conducting provisioning and training exercises until 10 February 1945. 10 february to 5 march 1945 The ship departed Ulithi Anchorage on 10 February 1945 in Task Group 58.2 and operated in Task Force 58 during the period from 10 February to 5 March in preparation for and support of the Iwo Jima operation. As part of Task Force 58 the ship participated in the first East Carrier Task Force strikes against Tokyo on 16 and 17 February 1945. The anticipated opposition to these strikes did not materialize. However, on the evening of 19 February, while steaming off Iwo Jima, several small groups of unidentified aircraft were discovered by radar to be closing the formation. The ship opened fire on one of these targets and an enemy aircraft tentatively identified as a ``Helen'' burst into flames and crashed for a successful conclusion to the ship's first action against the enemy. The ship participated as part of Task Force 58 in the 19 to 23 February air strikes in support of the landing forces on Iwo Jima, the 25 February strikes against the Tokyo area and the 1 March 1945 strikes against Okinawa Shima. 5 to 13 march 1945 As part of Task Force 58, the ship remained at anchor in Ulithi Anchorage engaging in routine repairs and replenishment from 5 to 13 March. On 9 March the ship was reassigned from Task Group 58.2 to Task Group 58.4. 14 march to 14 june 1945 The ship departed Ulithi Anchorage on 14 March as part of Task Force 59 and following exercises in company with Battleship Squadron Two on 14 and 15 March, the MISSOURI joined Task Group 58.4 on 16 March. As part of Task Force 58 the ship participated in the 18 and 19 March carrier aircraft attacks against Kyushu and the Island Sea area. During the afternoon and night of 17 March enemy aircraft were known to be in the vicinity of the Task Force, however, none closed to within range of the ships of the formation. At 0741 on 18 March an enemy plane succeeded in dropping a bomb on the U.S.S. Enterprise which was in formation off the MISSOURI's port bow. At 0805 this ship together with others in the formation opened fire at an enemy plane identified as ``Nick'' or ``Helen''. The plane burst into flames and unsuccessfully attempted to crash the U.S.S. Intrepid. At 0828 and 0850 the ship opened fire on enemy planes. The first was observed to be damaged when the ship ceased fire and was later splashed by the Combat Air Patrol while the second was downed by gunfire. At 1316 the MISSOURI opened fire at a plane which dropped a bomb near the U.S.S. Yorktown and at 1320 fired upon a plane which approached to 2,500 yards. Both of these planes were destroyed by gunfire. A number of enemy planes remained out of range in the vicinity of the formation until 2115 when the last plane of the day was splashed by a night fighter. On 19 March eight enemy raids were tracked by radar before sunrise but none closed to within range. At 0708 firing was seen on the horizon and almost immediately a carrier in Task Group 58.2 was seen to burst into flame. This carrier was later identified by TBS as the U.S.S. Franklin. During the balance of the day there were a number of alerts and enemy planes were downed by the Combat Air Patrol but none approached within range of the formation. During the period 19 to 21 March there were numerous reports of enemy aircraft in the area, however, these were either accounted for by the Combat Air Patrol or did not approach within range of MISSOURI's guns. On 24 March the ship, with others, was detached from Task Group 58.4 to form Task Force 59. As part of Task Force 59 the ship participated in the bombardment of southeastern Okinawa Shima on March 24. This was accomplished at extreme range and accurate assessment of damage was therefore, not possible. Thereafter the ship fueled and rejoined Task Group 58.4 on 26 March 1945 and as part of Task Force 58 the ship continued to operate off Okinawa Gunto and participated in strikes against Kyushu until May 6. During this period there were frequent alerts and enemy aircraft were destroyed by Combat Air Patrol in the vicinity. The ship opened fire on 29 March 1945 on a plane which unsuccessfully attempted to dive upon the U.S.S. Yorktown and on 7 April the ship was with Task Force 58 during the air strikes which sank the Japanese battle ship Yamato. On 11 April 1945, Task Force 58 was engaged in neutralizing sweeps against southern Kyushu airfields. During the morning one enemy raid was destroyed by the Combat Air Patrol. At 1330 several groups of unidentified planes were reported approaching the formation. By 1340 reports had been received that 13 enemy planes had been splashed and that 3 others were approaching the formation at high speed and low altitude. At 1442 the ship opened fire on a low flying ``Zeke'' and although many hits were observed, the pilot succeeded in crashing the side of the MISSOURI immediately below the main deck at frame 169 on the starboard side. Parts of the plane were scattered along the starboard side of the ship and the pilot's mutilated body landed aboard. One wing of the plane was thrown forward and lodged near 5 inch mount number 3 where gasoline started a fire which was rapidly extinguished. The ship sustained only superficial damage and none of the ship's company was injured. Later during the day the ship unsuccessfully fired upon a twin engine plane which passed approximately 12,000 yards astern of the ship. Enemy planes were known to be in the vicinity during the night and at 2327 the ship commenced firing at a twin engine plane which crashed approximately one minute later. On the next day, ships on the other side of the formation fired upon one enemy plane and enemy snoopers were in the vicinity during the period from 12 to 14 April 1945, but the MISSOURI did not open fire. On 16 April Task Force 58 was again conducting raids in support of the landing forces on Okinawa Shima and strikes against the Japanese airfields on southern Kyushu. At 0038 the first Japanese planes approached the formation but retired after being fired upon by ships of the screen. From this time until 1303 numerous reports of enemy planes were received but none closed to within range. At 1303 a group of planes which later developed to be Kamikazes were discovered heading for the formation. Shortly after 1326 the ship opened fire on a low flying ``Zeke'' which crashed close aboard the U.S.S. Intrepid. Two minutes later fire was opened on a second ``Zeke'' and when hit the pilot of this plane attempted to crash the MISSOURI. The wing tip of this plane struck the ship's aircraft crane on the stern and the ``Zeke'' crashed a short distance astern exploding violently. Debris was thrown aboard ship but only minor material damage was sustained. At 1335, nine minutes after the ship opened fire on the first plane, a third plane identified as a ``Hamp'' was fired upon while diving on the ship. The ``Hamp'' burst into flame, passed over the ship at an altitude of about 300 feet and crashed close aboard off the starboard bow. One minute later two planes dove on the U.S.S. Intrepid. One succeeded in crashing her and the other was destroyed. From 1514 to 1516 the ship fired upon two planes. One of these crashed forward of the Intrepid and the other close aboard a destroyer. Two minutes later a third plane which passed 6,000 yards astern of the ship was fired upon and disappeared over the horizon. Shortly thereafter a plane was observed to crash and burn in that general direction. During the remainder of the afternoon planes were shot down by other Task Groups but none came within range of the ship. At 2050 and 2110 the ship opened fire on planes which came within 5 inch gun range and both immediately withdrew. Enemy planes dropped window in the vicinity during the balance of the night but none closed the formation. On 17 April a 35 plane raid was destroyed by the Combat Air Patrol approximately 60 miles from the formation. However, no enemy planes closed the formation. During the night the ship had a surface radar contact which was later developed by destroyers of the screen and resulted in a kill on an enemy submarine on the following day. There was no enemy activity from April 23 to April 28. On 29 April enemy aircraft was reported destroyed by the Combat Air Patrol in the morning. At 1645 the ships of the formation including the MISSOURI fired upon and downed one enemy plane. Later during the early morning of 30 April, night fighters splashed enemy planes in the vicinity of the formation but no ships fired during that day. On May first, second, and third, no enemy planes were known to be in the area and on May four and five, although Japanese planes were splashed by the Combat Air Patrol, none approached the formation. On 6 May the MISSOURI was detached from Task Group 58.4 and proceeded to Ulithi Anchorage Fleet. The ship arrived in Ulithi on 9 May and remained there until 17 May. On 14 May Captain W. M. Callaghan, USN, was detached from duty as Commanding Officer of the MISSOURI and was relieved by Captain S. S. Murray, USN, the ship departed Ulithi on 17 May and arrived Apra Harbor, Guam on 18 May where, at 1527 Admiral W. F. Halsey, USN, Commander Third Fleet, hoisted his flag aboard the U.S.S. MISSOURI. The ship and screening destroyers McNair and Wedderburn formed Task Group 30.1 on 21 May and departed Apra Harbor for Hagushi Anchorage, Okinawa Shima, arrived 26 May. While at Hagushi Anchorage on 26 May the ship was twice alerted for air attacks but none developed in the immediate vicinity. The ship departed Hagushi Anchorage in the afternoon of 27 May and conducted a bombardment of targets on southeastern Okinawa Shima in support of the occupying forces, and then proceeded to rendezvous with Task Force 38 off eastern Okinawa Shima. At midnight of 27 May command of all forces of the Fifth Fleet passed to Commander Third Fleet. The MISSOURI rejoined Task Group 38.4 on 28 May. The Task Force remained off Okinawa Gunto with the carriers furnishing air support to the occupation forces. There was no enemy air activity in the vicinity of the Task Force from 28 May to 10 June although during this period the force again conducted strikes on 2 and 3 June against the Kyushu airfields. On 4 June reports of a typhoon 50 miles south southwest of the Task Force were received and the Task Force withdrew from position in the path of the typhoon. Heavy weather was experienced during 5 May and very minor damage was sustained by the ship due to the heavy seas. On 8 June the Force returned to strike southern Kyushu airfields and on 9 and 10 June air strikes were made against the islands of Daito Shoto. On 10 June Task Force 38 commenced retiring to San Pedro Bay, Leyte, P.I., arriving on 13 June 1945. The period 14 June to 1 July was spent in upkeep, provisioning and recreation at Leyte Anchorage. 1 July to 15 August 1945 The MISSOURI departed Leyte on the morning of 1 July and the first eight days at sea were spent in exercise periods under Unit, Group and Task Force Commanders, while the Task Force was heading in a general northerly direction. On the evening of 9 July a high speed run toward the Tokyo area commenced. At 0400 on the tenth the various air strikes against airfields in the Tokyo area commenced and although enemy aircraft were reported none succeeded in getting through the air patrol. The Task Force proceeded northeast on 11 July and on 13 July was off northern Honshu and Hokkaido prepared for air strikes which it developed could not be made on account of poor weather and low visibility. On the fourteenth the air strikes against northern Honshu and Hokkaido shipping and airfields were made. On 15 July the MISSOURI joined Task Unit 34.8.2 for the bombardment of industrial targets located in Muroran Hokkaido. No opposition developed during the approach, nor was there return fire from shore while the Task Unit shelled the Nihon Steel Works and Wanished Iron Works between 0935 and 1027 (Item) with good results. The MISSOURI rejoined Task Group 38.4 in the evening and proceeded south to fuel on 16 July. The Task Force was in position on 17 July to conduct air strikes against airfields in the Tokyo area. However, the weather was again unfavorable for air operations. In the afternoon of the 17th the MISSOURI again joined Task Unit 34.8.2 and proceeded to bombard the Hitachi area, Honshu. There was again no opposition to the approach of the bombardment group and no return fire during the bombardment of industrial targets in the Hitachi area from 2315 on 17 July to 0600 on 18 July. The bombardment was conducted in exceedingly poor weather which made spotting or illumination of targets as well as determination of the bombardment results impossible. On 18 July the MISSOURI rejoined Task Group 38.4 which conducted air strikes against targets in the Tokyo area on that day. During 20, 21 and 22 July the most extensive replenishment of fuel, ammunition and provisions were attempted at sea was completed and on 23 July the Task Force again was en route for strikes against combatant shipping in the Kure-Kobe area of the Inland Sea and although enemy planes were reported in the vicinity none succeeded in evading the Combat Air Patrol. Poor weather had prevailed during these strikes and they were therefore repeated on 28 July, again with no enemy air activity over the Task Force. On the twenty-ninth a return to the Tokyo area commenced and on 30 July aircraft of the Task Force hit the Tokyo-Nagoya area. Again there was no enemy air opposition over the Task Force. The first six days of August were spent in fueling and maneuvers to avoid the paths of two typhoons which moved north along the Japanese coast. On 7 August the Task Force commenced a run to position to strike northern Honshu and Hokkaido, however, on 8 August fog and low visibility prevented flight operations and the Task Force proceeded south in search of more favorable weather. On 8 August Japanese aircraft were encountered by the Combat Air Patrol and on 9 August the picket destroyers of the formation had been under attack and at 1610 a ``Grace'' was splashed astern of the MISSOURI and close aboard the U.S.S. Wasp. Due to the Missouri's position in the formation the 40 MM guns only were able to fire at this plane. The tenth to twelfth of August were spent in replenishment and many conferences of Task Force and Group Commanders were held aboard the MISSOURI as a result of the information received concerning Japanese surrender proposals. On 13 August other Task Groups of Task Force 38 were under air attack but no enemy aircraft were over Task Group 38.4. 14 August was spent in getting into position for further strikes against the Tokyo area. These strikes were launched on 15 August but were recalled as a result of an urgent dispatch from CincPac. At 1109, by direction of Commander Third Fleet the MISSOURI's whistle and siren were sounded for a period of one minute while battle colors were broken and Admiral Halsey's personal flag was raised in official recognition of the end of active hostilities against the Japanese Empire. During this day the Combat Air Patrol splashed Japanese aircraft in the vicinity of the Task Force but none penetrated the patrol. From 15 to 26 August the MISSOURI operated off the coast of Japan awaiting orders to proceed with the occupation of Japan. On 27 August the MISSOURI and escorting destroyers proceeded into Sagami Wan, Honshu, having taken aboard Japanese emissaries and a pilot. The 28th of August was spent at anchor and on 29 August the MISSOURI got underway and entered Tokyo Bay anchoring off Yokosuka Naval Station at 0925. The ship remained at anchor in Tokyo Bay without incident, until 2 September on which day the formal document of the Japanese surrender was executed aboard the U.S.S. MISSOURI. On that day Fleet Admiral C. W. Nimitz boarded the MISSOURI at 0805 and his personal flag was broken. At 0843 General of the Army Douglas MacArthur came aboard. At 0856 the Japanese representatives arrived and between 0902 and 0906 the Japanese representatives signed the Instrument of Surrender and two minutes later General MacArthur signed the Instrument. The ceremony was completed at 0925 and the various dignitaries departed the ship. Thereafter the MISSOURI remained at anchor in Tokyo Bay until 6 September 1945, when she departed for Apra Harbor, Guam. Admiral William F. Halsey transferred his flag as Commander Third Fleet to the U.S.S. South Dakota on 5 September 1945. Passage from Tokoyo Bay to Guam was without incident and the MISSOURI arrived in Apra Harbor on 9 September. The ship departed Guam with homeward bound veterans on 12 September 1945 and arrived Pearl Harbor, T. H. on 20 September 1945. post world war II On 29 September 1945, MISSOURI departed Pearl Harbor and headed for the Eastern seaboard of the United States. Transiting the Panama Canal, she headed for New York where she became the flagship of Admiral Jonas Ingram, Commander in Chief, United States Atlantic Fleet, on 24 October 1945. On 27 October 1945, the MISSOURI boomed out a 21 gun salute as she was boarded by President Harry S. Truman during Navy Day celebration ceremonies. After overhaul in the New York Yard, and a training cruise to Cuba, the MISSOURI was on her way to Gibralter in March 1946. From there she passed into the Mediterranean on a goodwill mission that served also as an impressive demonstration of American military power. Her presence symbolized U.S. support for the rights and freedom of Greece and Turkey, both in danger on being drawn into the Soviet orbit of satellite states. In Rio de Janeiro, on 2 September 1947, the MISSOURI was again a symbol of American strength in support of its allies against the advances of Communist aggression. The MISSOURI provided the site for President Truman to sign the Rio Treaty which made the Monroe Doctrine a multilateral pact. Business and ceremonial duties concluded, President Truman, accompanied by Mrs. Truman and his daughter Margaret, returned to the United States aboard the battleship. From 23 September 1947 to 10 March 1948, the MISSOURI was in the New York Navy Yard for overhaul and then went on a training cruise to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. She arrived in Annapolis in June to take on midshipmen for a training cruise to Portugal, France, Algeria and back to Cuba. On 17 January 1950, heading to sea from Hampton Roads, the MISSOURI ran aground. It was 0825, close to high tide, when the battleship ran aground 1.6 miles from Thimble Shoals Lights near Old Point Comfort. She traversed shoal water a distance of three ship lengths, about 2,500 feet, from the main channel. Lifted about seven feet above the water line, she stuck hard and fast. It took many tugs, pontoons, and an incoming tide to free her finally on 1 February. The incident provided Navy personnel with valuable experience in extensive and diverse salvage work. korea Until called to support United Nations Forces in embattled Korea in 1950, the MISSOURI trained thousands of naval reserves, midshipmen, and other naval personnel on cruises from New England to the Caribbean and across the Atlantic to English and European waters. Leaving Norfolk 19 August 1950, MISSOURI became the first American battleship to reach Korean waters just one day in advance of the Inchon landings on 15 September 1950. On arrival off Kyushu, Japan, MISSOURI became the flag ship of Rear Admiral A.E. Smith, and the next day was bombarding Samchok in a diversionary move coordinated with the Inchon landings. In company with the cruiser U.S.C. Helena and two destroyers, she helped prepare the way for the Eighth Army offensive. In a bombardment of the Pohang area 17 September 1950, Missouri's 16-inch shells assisted the South Korean troops in the capture of that town and their advance to Yongdok. Her bombardment of the Mitsubishi Iron Works and the airfield at Chongjin on 12 October were a significant factor in the advance of American and other United Nations forces embattled ashore. Her guns did considerable damage to marshaling yards and a strategic railroad bridge on the Tanchon area. She moved on to bombard Wonsan and then moved into Hungnam 23 December 1950. Her powerful guns hit enemy troop concentrations, command posts, and lines of communication, providing cover for the evacuation of the last of the UN troops from Hungnam on Christmas Eve, 1950. In the opening weeks of 1951, MISSOURI continued coastal bombardment aimed at destroying transportation facilities and disrupting the flow of enemy reinforcements and supplies to central Korea. She joined a heavy bombardment group off Kansong on 29 January 1951 in a simulated amphibious assault which provided a diversion some 50 miles behind the enemies front lines. During the first week of February, she gave fire support to assist the advance of the Tenth U.S. Army Corps in the area of Kangnung. She systematically bombarded transportation facilities and enemy troop concentrations in the vicinity of Tanchon and Songjin. She made similar gun strikes between 14 and 19 March at Kojo Wan, Songjin, Chaho, and Wonsan aimed primarily at transport complexes necessary for the continued reinforcement and supply of enemy forces in central Korea. Then, on 28 March 1951, MISSOURI was relieved of duty in the Far East and left for the United States and Norfolk, arriving there 27 April 1951. She again joined the Atlantic Fleet to train midshipmen and other prospective naval officers until 18 October 1951 when she entered Norfolk Naval Shipyard for an overhaul which lasted until January 1952. On 4 August 1952, MISSOURI was again in the Norfolk Naval Shipyard for overhaul being prepared for her second tour of the Korean Combat Zone. She stood out of Hampton Roads 11 September 1952, and by end of October, as flagship of the U.S. Seventh Fleet, she was providing seagoing artillery support to Republic of Korea troops in the Chaho area. Throughout the remaining months of 1952, MISSOURI was on ``Cobra Patrol'' along the East coast of Korea. She participated in a combined air-gun strike at Chongjin on 17 November and on 8 December was bombarding in the Tanchon- Songjin area. The next day it was Chaho, and 10 December Wonsan felt the power of her guns. During the bombardment of the Hamhung and Hungnam areas MISSOURI lost three of her men when her spotter helicopter crashed into the wintry sea on 21 December 1952. On patrol in early 1953, MISSOURI made repeated gun strikes running swiftly just 25 miles offshore in direct support of troops on land. Missouri sustained a grievous casualty 26 March, when her Commanding Officer, Captain Warner R. Edsall suffered a fatal heart attack while conning her through submarine nets at Sasebo, Japan. Her last fighting mission of the Korean War was on 25 March 1953 was to resume ``Cobra'' patrol where she bombarded the Kojo area. The MISSOURI was relieved as flagship on 6 April 1953 and left Yokosuka the following day to return to the Atlantic Fleet. She arrived at Norfolk 4 May 1953 and put out almost immediately for a midshipman training cruise to Brazil, Trinidad, Panama, and Cuba. She was back again for overhaul in the Norfolk Naval Shipyard from 20 November 1953 to 2 April 1954. In May, she picked up midshipmen from Annapolis and started a training cruise to Europe. Standing out of Hampton Bays, MISSOURI aligned with the other Iowa Class battleships for the one and only time. IOWA, NEW JERSEY, MISSOURI, and WISCONSIN sailed together as the future ``Strength for Freedom.'' MISSOURI visited the ports of Lisbon, Portugal and on 6 June 1954, the Port of Cherbourg, celebrating the 10th anniversary of the Normandy landings or ``D-Day.'' In August she left Norfolk for the west coast and inactivation. MISSOURI traversed the Panama Canal and made ports of call in Long Beach, San Francisco, and Seattle where tens of thousands of citizens visited the ship. The ship then went to the Bremerton Naval Shipyard for mothballing. There she was decommissioned 26 February 1955 and assigned to the Bremerton Group, U.S. Pacific Reserve Fleet. MISSOURI served as headquarters ship of the Bremerton Group where she was open year round to visitors. As many as 100,000 people a year visited MISSOURI to see the place on her deck where the Japanese surrendered ending the Second World War. new birth After almost 30 years at rest, MISSOURI, on 14 May 1984 left her berth in Bremerton and was towed to the Long Beach Naval Shipyard for modernization and scheduled recommissioning in June, 1986. MISSOURI was recommissioned in San Francisco and departed on an around-the-world shakedown cruise, the first battleship to circumnavigate the world since President Theodore Roosevelt's ``Great White Fleet'' of 1907-1909. The ship was home ported in Long Beach, California. In 1987, MISSOURI journeyed to the troubled waters of the Persian Gulf, supporting operations near the Strait of Hormiz. During 1988, MISSOURI participated in the Rim of the Pacific (RimPac) Exercise off the coast of Hawaii. Following a routine shipyard period in early 1989, MISSOURI returned to sea and later in the year participated in Pacific Exercise (PacEx) '89 and visited Pusan Korean. persian gulf MISSOURI deployed to the Persian Gulf in support of Desert Shield. On the first day of Desert Storm, she fired her 16'' guns at Iraqi targets inside Kuwait. The USS Nicholas (FFG- 47) escorted her in and she began shelling targets first. From 4-6 February, she fired 112 16'' shells, along with Tomahawk missiles. The ship was finally relieved by the USS Wisconsin. As for the 1990's, MISSOURI is as she was during the 1940's; ready for sea and always ready to answer the call of battle. In November, 1993, MISSOURI departed Long beach for Pearl Harbor, where she was the host ship for the 50th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor. She returned to Long Beach and was decommissioned on March 31, 1992. She was towed to the Bremerton, Washington shipyard where she has rested as part of the Naval Reserve Fleet. On 2 September 1995, the U.S.S. MISSOURI ASSOCIATION, INC. will hold ceremonies at the ship in Bremerton, WA, honoring those who have served aboard the ship and have passed on, as well as those who have served aboard at the time and are attending the 50th anniversary of the surrender signing. Upon call, MISSOURI will still be a powerful and fearful dreadnought in the best tradition of the U.S. Navy. Postscript: On the 5th of January 1995, the Department of the Navy Chief of Naval Operations, by reference of President Clinton and the Board of Inspection and Survey, recommended that the Iowa Class Battleship, including the U.S.S. MISSOURI, be stricken from the Naval Vessel Register. This was approved by the Secretary of the Navy John H. Dalton on 12 January 1995 and the ships await their final destiny. (2 September 1995)

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my good friend from Mississippi, Mr. Taylor, who just explained that Presidents have not traditionally offered balanced budgets, that is what makes this Republican conference different. We offered and passed a balanced budget. Today we are here to look at the President's latest proposal. I rise in opposition to it because it will increase the national debt and it fails to provide tax incentives to create economic growth. I believe the President's real objective is political. But sooner or later, the American people will realize that the President is not serious about a balanced budget and he is not serious about a middle- class tax cut either. Look, economic growth is brought about through a good tax policy, and that is not a partisan issue. It is bipartisan. Jack Kennedy knew so in 1963 and he said so, and the Republicans in this House know it today as well. Also, the President's latest budget proposals fail to balance the budget. In fact, this proposal will add $1 trillion to the national debt. It is important that the American people know were the President is and it is important that he knows where the Congress is. The excessive level of Federal spending is a serious drag on economic growth, and that is beyond question. According to a Joint Economic Committee study, which I will release soon, for every dollar of projected spending, the economy is reduced by 38 cents. In other words, for every $100 billion in projected Federal spending growth, the economy will shrink by $38 billion. The Republican approach would reverse this process and for the first time in decades we have an opportunity to balance the budget, and it is not through this proposal.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, just a few minutes ago the Speaker of the House and the President concluded a meeting on which we hope there was substantial progress on negotiations toward a balanced budget. I take this opportunity this evening to speak of a Joint Economic Committee report which shows clearly that there is a marked effect on family income and on the economic status of a family because of our movement which will eventually conclude in a balanced budget. First, Mr. Speaker, it is important to point out, and this is extra from the report that I want to talk about today, that the individual share of the national debt that we have collectively accrued for each of the 280 million people who live in this country is about $18,000. That is right, for every man, woman, and child who is a citizen of the United States of America, the individual share of the national debt amounts to just about $18,000. To bring that close to home, to let us see clearly what it means to each person, obviously, off in the abstract someplace there is a problem because there is an $18,000 debt, but it is kind of out of sight until we understand that when we pay our income tax bill each year there is interest that must be paid on that $18,000 debt. If I went down to the bank to borrow $18,000 and the person at the bank said, ``OK, Mr. Saxton, we will lend you the $18,000, but you need to know that you have to pay interest on it,'' the interest on that $18,000 note that I would take out would amount to somewhere, if it were a 7-percent note or thereabouts, it would amount to about $1,060 a year that I would have to pay on that $18,000 loan that I took out at the bank. That is precisely what happens with the $18,000 that we each owe the Federal Government. When we pay our Federal income taxes each year, on average, about $1,060 goes to pay the interest on our $18,000 share of the national debt. Of course, for an average family of four, that gets a little expensive, because $1,060 times four comes out to about $42,040 a year. So there is a definite economic impact on each and every individual and on each and every family. Further, the Joint Economic Committee Report, which Members have access to by calling my office, the Joint Economic Committee report that we published shows that there is a further impact on each American family that amounts to a very significant amount of money. As a matter of fact, it amounts to about $2,308 a year. It is interesting to see how this report takes us there, because all of our families have certain things in common. If your individual family does not face these exact facts, you will at least be able to relate to them, because they are not uncommon. For example, we believe that balancing the budget, and most economists believe that balancing the budget and Alan Greenspan believes that our balancing the budget will have a significant impact on interest rates. As a matter of fact, on most interest rates they are projecting about 2.2 percent lower at the conclusion of our 7-year balanced budget plan. So in the plan that we passed, and we provided for that economic benefit. For a family that has a mortgage on their home, a $100,000 mortgage, as is used in the case here, and the interest rate drops by 2 percent, it amounts to a whopping $1,456 a year in savings on that home mortgage. So we jump right out front with a big savings for the individual homeowner of about $1,456. It also would not be unusual for a family of, let us say, three, as is the case in this example, for a family of three, it would not be unusual for that family to have a student loan. If we reduced the interest rate on that student loan, like we did for the interest rate on the home mortgage, we see here there would be an additional $50 a year in savings, another significant amount, as we add up this total pie. It would not also be unusual for a family like our family to have a car loan. That car loan at $15,000 and a lowered interest rate by 2.22 percent would produce a savings of $108 a year. In the plan that we passed to balance the budget, as Members will recall, we had a $500 per child tax credit. So in this family, you see, we have another 500 savings. There would also be some savings or some additional income because we know that if we put our fiscal house in order, it will have a positive effect on our economy. We believe that it will produce jobs, and we also believe it will produce higher rates of wages, higher rates of pay, so our economist friends projected that additional income would amount to about $194 a year. Adding all of these savings up from a better fiscal situation for our government and a better economic situation for our country, in actual savings for American families, we come up with a net savings of $2,308 a year for this family of three. The conclusion that we almost draw from this, Mr. Speaker, is that the facts presented in this analysis, which, again, is available by calling my office, lead to but one conclusion: The price of higher spending and greater debt accumulation is far too high not to balance the budget. Refusing to bring spending in line with revenue will cost a typical American family $192 a month, and over $2,300 a year. So I invite all of my colleagues and anyone else on Capitol Hill or around the country that is interested to give a call. We will be happy to send out a copy of this economic analysis, which shows these facts very clearly.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 33) to transfer the fish farming experimental laboratory in Stuttgart, AR, to the Department of Agriculture, and for other purposes.

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 support the adoption of H.R. 33, introduced by our colleague from Arkansas, Blanche Lambert Lincoln. The purpose of this legislation is to transfer the fish farming experimental laboratory in Stuttgart, AR, from the Department of the Interior to the U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] and to rename that facility to more accurately reflect the true nature of the work performed there. The bill was the subject of a hearing before my Subcommittee of Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans on September 21, and there was overwhelming support for this measure. This laboratory, which was first established in 1960, has conducted important research and development on various techniques for the commercial production of catfish, baitfish, and other finfishes, which have been worth in excess of $600 million. In addition, the laboratory houses the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's triploid grass carp certification inspection program, which has provided services to fish producers in over 30 States. Finally, both the administration and the Appropriations Committee have recommended that this laboratory be transferred to the Department of Agriculture. The vast majority of those who use the laboratory are farmers and it seems to me that USDA should be assigned responsibility over its functions. I am not aware of any controversy over this legislation and I urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 33. 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 and include extraneous material on H.R. 33, the bill just passed.