Jim Saxton

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Reclaiming my time, would the chairman of the subcommittee explain what funds are available to continue this program?

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

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I wish to enter into a colloquy with the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis]. Mr. Chairman, the report of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations contains language that highlights the excellent work conducted by the EPA in the use of a helicopter for water quality testing along the New York-New Jersey coasts. The EPA established a water quality testing program due to the pollution problems experienced that year by New Jersey and New York in the beaches which they experienced in 1988. As Members may recall, this was front page news which caused people to stay away from our beaches. This problem could have done irreparable harm to the economy, but with the cooperation of the Federal, State, and local governments, a comprehensive plan was implemented to ensure that the ocean water quality would never be in the sad shape that we found it in 1988. Since 1988, we have made steady progress in making our coastal waters clean. There are two critical elements to the EPA's water quality testing program. First is the spotting of floatables in the coastal waters, and the second is the actual monitoring and surveying of water quality. In both situations, the EPA utilizes a helicopter to conduct its work. I want to clarify the committee report language. The committee language discusses the spotting and immediate cleanup of floatables, but does not specify or mention monitoring and surveying of water quality. I ask the subcommittee chairman if the intent of the committee language includes the monitoring and surveying of water quality, in addition to the spotting of floatables?

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 1141, the Sikes Act Improvement Amendments of 1995, introduced by Don Young and me in March of this year. The Sikes Act was enacted in 1960 to provide a mechanism for cooperative wildlife management on U.S. military installations. H.R. 1141 will make the Sikes Act more effective in several important respects. First, existing conservation plans which deal exclusively with fish and wildlife habitat improvements will be replaced with integrated natural resource management plans which encompass all natural resource management activities. Second, natural resource management plans will have to be prepared for all military installations, except those without any significant fish, wildlife or natural resource management plans. Third, the Secretary of Defense will be required to submit an annual report to [[Page H 6712]] Congress summarizing the status of implementation of the integrated natural resources management plans. Finally, the bill extends authorization of appropriations, which expired on September 30, 1993, for the next 3 fiscal years. This legislation is noncontroversial and important to the training units of our Armed Forces. I urge my colleagues support of H.R. 1141.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, the beltway mentality that exists here never ceases to amaze me. The votes on this issue, had they been cast, would not have changed the result of the vote to begin with. But the real crime here is that the people in my district at least have some real concerns. For example, I have some senior citizens in my district who are concerned about Medicare. And yet while your party decides that they want to complain and carp about a time limit on a [[Page H 6209]] vote, you all suggest that we are not going to deal with the Medicare problem. The President himself has admitted that Medicare goes bankrupt in 7 years. Yet your party decides to refuse to address the issue. Which is more important? Squabbling about these votes or getting to the business of the people and addressing issues like Medicare? Mr. Speaker, I am tired of the partisan bickering. I seldom take part in these partisan debates; I prefer to deal with issues, issues like Medicare. Let us get on with the people's business.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I would not normally involve myself in a dispute between two good friends, but in this case this is really all of our business. I have here the base realignment closure report from 1991, and it says quite clearly, ``Recommendation: Close Naval Station Long Beach and transfer the ships--reassign ships to other specific fleet home ports,'' but what the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn] is trying to do here is defund the other homeport so there is no place for the ships to go so they stay in his homeport. That is pretty neat if it can be done, but I think it is the wrong thing to do. Second, a four star general said to me recently, ``Do us one favor. Don't make any changes in what BRACC has already done. People who wear the uniform deserve the right to have some stability in the force,'' and this would create, I believe, instability. Third, let me make a point that, if we move this concept to the East Coast where I live, Philadelphia Shipyard has been closed, other east port shipyards are open. I ask, Why don't Rob Andrews, Curt Weldon, and Tom Foglietta and Jim Saxton just get together and introduce a bill to defund them? That is not a logical way for us to proceed. So I oppose the amendment, and I ask others to join me.

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

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

Mr. SAXTON. We cannot speak for the administration and their budget. This is obviously something that makes a great deal of sense and something that military planners do not disagree with. Every branch of the service has its priorities, and we are told that this is a priority of some magnitude.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. [[Page H 6121]] Mr. Chairman, I just would like to respond to my good friend from New York. He raised a question as to what we might know that people on the other side of the aisle do not, and I am not sure that we know anything that the people on the other side of the aisle do not, but there are some very important facts here that I think are interesting to consider in light of the fact that we are going through currently the last stage of a major reorganization of our base structure, and that organization and reorganization has been going on now for some 6 years. From the Army's point of view, this relationship that will exist between Barstow-Daggett and Fort Irwin is a very, very important relationship. Let me just try to point out where there are some other relationships that exist like this. For example, Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base enjoy a relationship that is quite similar to this, for perhaps a different purpose, but a very similar kind of a thing, and as a result of that relationship, as far as I know, the Base Realignment and Closing Commission process, BRAC, has never begun to address either Fort Bragg or Pope Air Force Base because of the relationship of the role they play with each other. More recently, of course, Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base have been together for many years, but more recently the Base Realignment and Closure Commission realized the importance of these kinds of relationships when they realigned McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey and realigned Fort Dix in New Jersey to carry forth the relationship of jointness much as is proposed by the mil con bill in creating a relationship at Barstow-Daggett and Fort Irwin. Fort Irwin, in my opinion, is never going to go away, and if anybody knows a little bit about base structure, they know Fort Irwin, the national training center, is huge, a huge base, thousands of acres, a national training center where 60,000 troops came each year to train to hone their skills, and a relationship with an Army air base where additional training can take place and the ease of transportation is provided to provide for a more cost-efficient mode of operation is part of this consolidation that is taking place through the BRAC process and through the process of mil con bill that we are here discussing today. And so I think from a point of cost effectiveness, from a point of distance in getting people to and from where they need to be, from the standpoint of training opportunities that are provided with close proximity of an air base and other training facilities and from commonsense opportunities that are offered and looked upon favorably by the base realignment and closure commission in each of the base closure actions that have taken place since 1989, I think it would be foolhardy for us to side with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] in spite of the fact that I think he has great intentions. I think the consolidated effort under way here a very essential part of the base reconfiguration project.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, just let me say very briefly, and then I will yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler], that I believe that what the Army is after here is the recognition of the fact that training in large part relates to deployment, and, if one is going to deploy efficiently, we must have the facilities together through which deployment takes place. That is true at Fort Dix and McGuire. That is true at Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base, and it is equally true at Barstow-Daggett and Fort Irwin. So I think it is something we cannot ignore.

Mr. SAXTON. That is the understanding that I have, and I would just add to that that the relationship between an airport where deployment actually takes place and the training facility at Fort Irwin is an additional reason for this consolidation to take place.

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

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for bringing that to our attention, and that would provide a more full answer to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 1996 military construction appropriations bill. I want to commend both Chairwoman Vucanovich and Chairman Hefley for their fine work. In particular, I want to commend the two chairs for their initiative in addressing what we all agree is a tremendous problem, the widespread shortage and poor condition of military housing. In testimony before the milcon subcommittees this year, defense officials stated that, at current program levels, it will take years and in some cases decades to provide sufficient housing to our service men and women. As an initial down payment toward addressing this problem, this bill contains an additional $425 million for the construction and improvement to military housing and troop housing. This addition will allow for the construction of nearly 1,200 family housing units, 20 new barracks, as well as substantial renovations to family and single family housing. I know that the construction of roads and buildings does not grab the headlines like weapons procurement or foreign policy debates. But for the young soldier and his or her family who need clean, affordable housing, this bill can make a real impact in their daily life and may, in fact, make the difference as to whether they remain a ``military family'' or leave the service. As a member of the National Security Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities, I have seen first hand the very real commitment to our military of both Chairwoman Vucanovich and Chairman Hefley and the ranking members, Mr. Hefner and Mr. Ortiz. This bill reflects their wise leadership and I strongly encourage my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise with some reluctance, but with some determination, to raise some questions about a very serious matter that occurred a short time ago. Together with Captain O'Grady we all thank God upon his return. It was, in fact, a miracle that he has been returned to us seemingly unharmed, and for that we are all very, very grateful, but I think some questions need to be asked about the circumstances under which Captain O'Grady had found himself in the air within the range of a SAM SA-6 missile. In reviewing some news reports and some quotes of some individuals recently, I was prompted to go back to a report that the House Republican task force on terrorism and unconventional warfare issued in June of 1993 about issues related to this subject. In that month we issued a report, and I would like to read a part of it because it has a direct bearing on this issue. Part of the report says the Serbian forces operate four SAM regiments, with the main concentration of Serb air defenses around the Banja Luka Air Base, including one SA-2 regiment, one battery of SA- 6's, and one battery of old triple-A antiaircraft weaponry. Now this Banja Luka Air Base also has a facility located on it that repairs and upgrades SA-6 missiles. This was all confirmed in June of 1994 by a well-respected defense publication known as Jane's Defense Weekly when they confirmed all of the information we had in 1993. Unfortunately for us, I think, on June 2 General Shalikashvili, in being interviewed by the Senate Armed Services Committee, said, and I quote: ``We had absolutely no intelligence that Serb SAM's were in the area. For months,'' he said, ``if not for years, there had never been detected an air defense site in that area,'' and he said the words ``Banja Luka.'' So I have very serious concerns about the fact that we knew this 3 years ago, that Jane's Defense Weekly reported it in 1994, and our top officials at the Pentagon seemingly had no idea that this in fact was the case, and so I think it raises some very, very important questions. We read in the other news report more recently, June 13, after we released our report from 1993 just recently to the press, and that was reported that Ken Bacon, spokesman at the Pentagon, said at that time, ``Finally, we were well aware of the Banja Luka facility where the Bosnian Serbs repair and maintain surface-to-air missile systems. The F-16 that Captain O'Grady was flying on June 2 was shot down outside of the area known as the threat envelope of the Banja Luka SAMs.'' Now the F-16, as far as I can determine from news reports and from other information that we have been able to gather, was shot down less than 40 kilometers from Banja Luka. It is important to know that these SA-6's are track-mounted vehicles along with a second track-mounted vehicle which carries the radar which integrates into the system, travels 30 or 40 miles per hour, and so certainly it should have been considered, in my opinion, within the envelope that short distance from Banja Luka, and it seems to me that anyone making plans to carry out these missions should have taken that into consideration. So I think this raises at least three questions, maybe more: No. 1, what intelligence did the field commanders have at their disposal while making these very, very important and life-threatening decisions? No. 2, what were the operational policies, and where were they made? What were the operational policies? Our information is that there were 2 F-16's, and normally, if there is a threat of surface-to-air missiles, there are five aircraft, including radar jamming aircraft. I believe F-4's, known as Wild Weasels, would normally accompany our F-16's on these types of missions to guard against the type of events that actually happened. No. 3, was it not reasonable to assume that Banja Luka, less than 40 kilometers away, was in fact part of the dangerous envelope into which these airplanes were flying? So I would just conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying this: In 1993 we were able to gain information that said this was a danger. Jane's Weekly reported in 1994 that this was a danger. Captain O'Grady was shot down proving that it was a danger, and we planned and carried out the mission anyway. I would like answers to those questions. I have requested the same. I have requested Chairman Spence to hold hearings on this issue. I would like to know who is making these decisions, and where they are being made, and under what circumstances they are being made. We have other pilots, soldiers and sailors to think about. I believe this is a very serious issue.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke].

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to address one point that has been made here over and over. As Members of Congress, our most important single duty is to provide for the common defense of our country against both foreign and domestic threats. As the gentleman on the other side of the aisle have pointed out continuously, or have tried to this afternoon, that we do not have a threat that we need to defend against with regard to this missile debate. I would remind them, as I did a month or so ago, and let me just quote here, this is a quote by Adm. William Studeman, who was the Acting Director of the Central Intelligence Agency under this administration, I might add, he said ``On January 18, 1995, the Admiral said and testified that `The proliferation of technology will lead to missiles that can reach the United States toward the end of this decade, or the beginning of the next decade.''' That is a fairly immediate threat, and it is someone who should know. That is someone who I believe has a great deal of credibility. It points to the necessity of us passing this provision as it is today.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Dellums amendment. I would say to the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Chairman, that this is a time when we have to make tough choices. I would say that we are here in part, at least, because we have collectively cut the defense budget every year for the last 9 years. I appreciate and understand the gentleman's willingness to want to build houses for military families with this money. It is important. However, those who would cut the funding of the ballistic missile defense see the world a far safer, friendlier place than the events in Korea, Iraq, China, or Russia could ever justify. Currently, 12 developing countries have Scud-class or better missile systems. North Korea has successfully flight-tested a ballistic missile with a range of 620 miles, and recent reports have cited the Koreans as possessing a missile with a possible range of as much as 5,600 miles. I would once again point out that on January 18 of this year, the acting director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Adm. William Studeman, said these words. He said that, ``The missiles will be able to reach us,'' in his opinion, ``toward the end of this decade or the beginning of the next.'' This is not a choice that we like to make, this is a choice that we must make. This is an amendment which must be defeated in order to propel us in the correct direction.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Once again, we stand on this floor and debate the merits of a defense authorization bill. But unlike previous debates, consideration of the 1996 Defense Authorization Act is different. Before us is legislation which stops the backsliding of previous defense bills and takes a critical first step toward matching resources with the ever-growing number of military commitments. This bill doesn't solve all the problems which plague our Armed Forces. Ten years of declining defense budgets cannot be overturned in a single defense budget. Yet this bill makes significant, concrete improvements. Among the many initiatives, this bill: Adds a third Aegis destroyer--a ship which was stricken from the Navy's original budget proposal but identified by the Navy's top admiral as his highest priority. Takes a more prudent and robust approach to missile defense by adding $763 million for ballistic missile defense program and directing the Secretary of Defense to develop and deploy theater and national defenses ``at the earliest practical date;'' [[Page H5789]] Fully funds the purchase of eight C-17's, a mission-essential platform which every top Pentagon official has testified as a gotta have program. In addition this bill sends a message to our military personnel and their families that we understand the hardships they endure. We show our appreciation by fully funding a 2.4 percent pay raise and by adding $425 million for the construction and improvements to military family housing and troop housing. Finally, this bill provides money to keep the B-2 industrial base in tact, giving us the option of procuring additional stealth bombers should we decide to do so. To those of my colleagues who think that the B-2 is too expensive, I simply point out that waging a war which a fleet of B-2 bombers could have deterred is far more costly both in terms of lives and money. Is this a perfect bill? No, but it does what the administration has failed to do in three previous defense proposals. It honestly identifies our defense needs and takes appropriate action to address them. My colleagues, last fall as part of our Contract With America we made a commitment to the American public that we would strengthen our military forces. In February, we passed H.R. 7 which demonstrated our commitment and our resolve. This bill continues that process by putting real deeds behind those words and promises. I urge Members to support our troops by supporting this bill. I urge my colleagues to support the bill and to avoid destructive amendments.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to recognize Waterford Township and its citizens during this celebration of its 300th birthday. This yearlong celebration, with its kickoff parade and pageant, circus, tree lighting ceremony, ecumenical service, anniversary ``Sweetheart Reception'' for the 65 couples in the township who have been married 50 years or longer, and now, the Finale Fair, pays tribute to the contributions of the 11,000 residents of this 37- square-mile community, located in the Third Congressional District of New Jersey. Lands encompassed by the original Township of Waterford later became Atlantic County in 1837 and Camden County in 1844. Additional lands were used to form what is now known as Cherry Hill. Land given from Waterford Township provided for the creation of Chesilhurst Borough and Voorhees Township, and the enlargement of the county of Burlington. Originally viewed by the early settlers of Philadelphia as a place of fresh air in the pines, it was the location of many summer homes for city folk. Today, it is the only community in Camden County to lie totally under the protection of the Pinelands Preservation Act. The Wharton State Forest, its open spaces, streams, and wildlife are an integral part of the charm and beauty of this community. However, it is the people of Waterford Township who have made this community grow and prosper. The support of the township's civic organizations such as the Rotary, Fire Company, schools, churches, and the Tri-Centennial Committee, demonstrates the commitment of its residents to the betterment of their community. It will be the people of Waterford Township who will protect and ensure its continued prosperity as it begins its fourth century. Their sharing and showing the spirit of pride in their heritage and their community today sets them apart and holds them together. To them, I pay tribute.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this noncontroversial legislation. H.R. 535 seeks to convey the Corning National Fish Hatchery to the State of Arkansas. Mrs. Lincoln, the sponsor of the bill, will fully explain the need for this legislation. Briefly, the State of Arkansas has been operating and maintaining the Corning hatchery since 1983. Arkansas has recognized the need to modernize the facility, but cannot obtain the necessary funding to do so because the State does not hold title to the hatchery. The Fish and Wildlife Service, which does hold title, fully supports the conveyance of the title to the State of Arkansas. During our subcommittee markup, I offered an amendment--which was adopted unanimously--to expand the mission of the hatchery. In that way, the Corning facility would not be limited to fish cultures only and would be able to perform a broader range of fishery-related activities. In addition, the amendment ensures that if this property ever reverts to the Federal Government, it will be in the same or better condition as the time of the transfer. These changes are reflected in the bill pending before the House today. I am confident that H.R. 535 as written will satisfy the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the State of Arkansas. I urge you to support H.R. 535 without amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate the new, beautiful Anthony R. DeMarco and Gladys Alloway DeMarco Municipal Building in Woodland Township, NJ which will be officially dedicated on June 15. This new facility, Mr. Speaker, is a particularly unique structure designed to reflect the community's cultural traditions and rich history. The new one story town hall was inspired by the architectural detailing and shingle style of the original saloon building and the surviving historic houses located throughout the town. The building materials reflect those used in the area. Hand split cedar shakes with cedar facias are the predominant materials used on the exterior. Pine end grain flooring with oak wanscot and trip were used extensively on the interiors. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the township has chosen to dedicate the facility as a tribute to Anthony R. DeMarco and Gladys Alloway DeMarco. It is truly a fitting dedication, Mr. Speaker. Upon Anthony's passing in 1964, a local newspaper published a memorial column. In part, it reads as follows: Few men thought more of Woodland Township and even fewer had more friends within the Township than Anthony R. DeMarco. Even though he was never a formal resident of Woodland, he passed most of his life in this area, either as a young laborer on cranberry bogs, or, in his mature years, as the owner and operator of a large blueberry and cranberry plantation. He took a keen interest in all aspects of Woodland Township civil and social activities and was an avid student of Burlington County history and of Pineland lore. As `Tony' grew older he spent even more time in Woodland Township enjoying the sort of tranquility and peacefulness that can only be found in an area uncorrupted by sprawling residential developments or by industrial complexes. Gladys Alloway DeMarco was born and raised in the Chatsworth area and was a teacher in the Chatsworth school. Her roots in the region extend back to the days of William Penn. Finally, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of community leaders who deserve special recognition for assuring that the vision for this important project became a reality. Woodland's Mayor, John Bowker, chaired the Building Committee that included the Township's two Committeemen, Robert DePetris and Thomas Davis, Township Clerk, Carol Cobb, and J. Garfield DeMarco. And, Mr. Speaker, the DeMarco Family generously supported the project and provided the assurance that it would be a facility the town will be proud of for generations to come. Very special thanks are due to J. Garfield DeMarco, Mark A. DeMarco, and Anna Lynne DeMarco Papinchak.