Jim Saxton

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. First, let me begin by saying that I have observed several speakers here during this debate who I am sure in good faith made the representations that they did, that the short-term redeployment or surge was not a recommendation of the Iraq Study Group. This is a copy of the report of the Iraq Study Group. On page 73 there is a discussion of increasing troop levels in Iraq. And the Iraq Study Group did in fact suggest that a substantial increase of 100,000 or 200,000 troops would likely be not a good idea. However, they say this, and I quote. ``We could, however, support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up the training and equipping mission if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective.'' And so I would say to my friends that is in fact the case. And so I hope that that puts that matter to rest. Mr. Speaker, this resolution, I suspect, has been drawn up as a well-meaning resolution. There have been some suggestions here today that it is political in nature. I do not know if that is true. But I would hope that it is a good, well- meaning resolution. I have been here now for well over 20 years, I am in my 23rd year. I have learned a lot about the House. This is a great system. We do great work here. And we usually do it right. Sometimes we make mistakes. On many issues we make corrections to those mistakes. When we pass tax bills, months later or a year later we will make some technical corrections to the tax bill, because we did not do it quite right. In many other cases, if we spend too much money in an appropriations bill this year, we can come back and reduce it in a future year. But I would suggest to my friends who support this resolution that it is a start down a road; it is a start down a road that at some point could have disastrous effects. So we want to make sure, I am sure you want to make sure, that you get this right. I would like to walk you through some reasons why I think that this takes us in the wrong direction. In fact, there is a bunch of evidence to point to the fact that the enemy is watching what we are doing, that they have learned from our past mistakes, and that they are in fact hoping that this resolution passes, for some fairly obvious reasons. Let me go through four case studies that we have made about similar situations. First, a situation in Lebanon. Lebanon was a wonderful country. It was a democracy. It had a Parliament. Had Christians and Muslims living together sharing power. In the middle 1970s, things began to change. The big change was that fundamentalist Islam came to town and Hezbollah came to town. And in 1975, a war erupted, which has been called a civil war. There was the emergence of multi-sided militia groups, sectarian violence and civilian massacres. Sounds familiar. In 1982, the U.N. sent in a multi-national force to try to quell the violence. And on October 23, 1983 the Marine barracks was bombed by Hezbollah with the support of Iran. The best description of it I have heard or read comes from a description by some Navy SEALs who were sleeping in their bunker on the beach, not in the barracks. And the magnitude of the explosion, to hear them describe it, was something to behold. And it shocked America. And in 1984 we withdrew our Marines. The remainder of the peacekeeping force was gone by April of 1984. There was no serious U.S. retaliation for the Beirut bombing. The civil war continued until 1990. Hezbollah emerged from a loose coalition of Shia groups and, with Iranian assistance, quickly grew into a strong fighting force in Lebanon. That is case number one. Case Number two. We have got troops today in Afghanistan. If things had happened somewhat differently a couple of decades earlier, they might not be there at all. But in the mid-1980s the Afghan resistance builds momentum with Muslim fighters to recruit a jihad against the Soviets. And we all have read about that resistance movement. It was fierce, and we actually helped them. And in 1989 the Soviets had had enough, just like we had had enough in Lebanon, and the Soviets withdrew. From 1989 to 1992, the Afghan civil war continued until the government of Afghanistan fell. In 1993 and 1994, the Taliban came along, and they gained power. In 1996, Osama bin Laden moves back to Afghanistan and forges an alliance between al Qaeda and the Taliban. Since then, we know the history very well of Afghanistan. A void was there to be filled, and the fundamentalist Islamists filled it. Now, I would like to turn to the third case study, the case study involving Somalia. In 1980, the Somalia Government becomes increasingly totalitarian and resistance movements emerge across the country, which leads to a civil war in 1991. Being great big-hearted Americans, in 1992 and 1993, we decided to save the starving Somalis, and we initiated Operation Restore Hope. In May 1993, the U.N. assumed the mission from the U.S. as an international mission. In October of 1993 the battle for Mogadishu took place. Eighteen Americans were killed. The U.S. stops operations against Aidid, and in March, 1995, both U.S. and U.N. forces withdraw. It was later confirmed that al Qaeda supported Aidid's militia. There is evidence that the U.S. withdrawal inspired bin Laden's first bombing of the World Trade Center. The Islamist fundamentalists filled the void once again. Let me move to my fourth case study, the Israeli withdrawal, again, from Lebanon. Preceding the Israeli invasion in 1982 the PLO was conducting attacks on Israel from south Lebanon. In 1982, Israeli forces invaded southern Lebanon in response to an assassination attempt by Abu Nidal against Israel's ambassador to the U.K. After attacking PLO, Syrian and Muslim Lebanese forces, Israel occupied southern Lebanon. If you want to read a great account of this, read the book entitled ``Because They Hate.'' It is a book written by a Christian woman by the name of Brigitte Gabriel, who is now living in the U.S., and she tells the story of living in a bunker, living in a bunker until the war was over, not a nice thing to do. In 1982 to 1984, the multi-national peacekeeping force came to Lebanon. The PLO withdrawal in 1982 is replaced by a strengthening of Hezbollah. In 1985, Israel moves to the security zone in southern Lebanon. And in 2000, Israel withdraws. I only need to point to the events of last summer in Lebanon to say, once again, the fundamentalist Islamists, Hezbollah, filled the void. We are embarked today on a discussion of another potential road to withdrawal. And I don't represent that this resolution does that, but it puts us in that direction. Evidence of our failure to respond to terrorism has emboldened al Qaeda for years. This withdrawal would be another one, if it goes that far. In 1993, the World Trade Center bombing took place. We didn't respond. In 1996, the Khobar Tower bombings took place and we didn't respond. In 1998, the U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania occurred and we didn't respond. In 2000, the attack on the USS Cole occurred and we didn't respond. The result, New York City, 9/11. People ask me why I am so concerned about this. People ask me why, Saxton, you have been on the floor too much. Let me show you the next chart. This is why I am concerned. This is my family. When I first ran for Congress in 1984 the steering committee asked me why I wanted to be a Member of Congress. I said, because I have had a good life. I said, because this is a great country, and because I want my family to have the same opportunities I have had. This is my son Marty and his wife and their little gal, my granddaughter Allie. This is my daughter, Jen, this is Kate, and this is Jacqueline. I will admit the artist got a little carried away because they made a montage out of this picture and they put my grandchildren on here two or three times each. But I will tell you what, if we go down this road to the point where we can't correct a mistake, I wonder what the future is going to be for my family and for your family. And so this resolution today is an important one. It may be only 97 words or whatever it is, and it may have only two statements in it, but we are headed down a road, and it is a dangerous one, in my opinion.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, it has been said here on the floor by more than one speaker, or suggested at least, that the war in Iraq is not part of the war on terror. I disagree. I could not disagree more with that statement. But if you agree with that statement, and if you are casting your vote because you think that is a rationale upon which you can justify your vote, I hope you are sure. I would say I would hope you are sure because I am in my 23rd year, and I know how this place works. It is a wonderful system, because we almost always have a chance to come back and correct our mistakes. A vote on tax policy? I happen to favor lower taxes. But if we make a tax vote that is a bad vote, we can come back next year and fix it. Or if we spend too much money on transportation this year, we can come back next year and reduce it. This resolution takes us down a different road. This starts us down a road where, at some point, we won't be able to come back next year and just fix it. You don't have to believe me. But listen to what our enemies say. I have here the text of a letter that was written on July 9, 2005, from Ayman al-Zawahiri, the author, the second in command in al Qaeda, to al-Zarqawi, the person who at that time was the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq. ``Our intended goal in this age is to establish a caliphate in the manner of the prophet.'' Now, I don't claim to be an expert in Islam, but I am told that at one time under this establishment of a caliphate, the caliphate stretched from Spain through the Middle East and Northern Africa to Central Asia and to India. That is a vast stretch. If that is the goal, then we ought to be aware of it, because it becomes a very serious matter. The first stage of this process is to expel the Americans from Iraq, according to al-Zawahiri. The second stage, establish an Islamic authority or an emirate, to develop it and support it until it achieves a level of a caliphate over as much territory as you can spread power in Iraq. The third stage, he says, is to extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq. The fourth stage, it may coincide with what came before, he says, the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity. So clearly, the al Qaeda leadership believes that Iraq is part of the global situation that we refer to as the global war on terror, and if that is right, and I think at least for me I have to assume that that is their intention, Iraq is certainly part of the global war on terror from a Western perspective. And so what the President has suggested is to take advantage of the assets that we have developed, while training Iraqi soldiers to provide for their own security, and send three brigades into the Sunni Triangle, mostly in Baghdad, to be supported by the 21,500 Americans who he has proposed to send. I heard yesterday that the Iraqi brigades are, in fact, showing up in Baghdad at a 75 percent level, which is better than anyone expected, at least better than I expected. Maybe others expected better. So I think if we are going to take on this effort to develop a caliphate, as one of the previous speakers said before it gets here, then maybe we ought to do what the commander of the national VFW suggests. The commander of the national VFW put out a press release, and I have the text of it here. ``The national commander of the Nation's largest organization of combat veterans is very concerned that the ongoing debate in Congress about the planned troop buildup will be perceived by those in uniform as a sign that America's lawmakers have given up on them and their mission in Iraq. ``My generation,'' he said, ``learned the hard way that when military decisions are second-guessed by opinion polls or overruled by politicians, it's the common soldier and their families who pay the price. ``There is no question,'' he said, ``that mistakes have been made in the prosecution of the war in Iraq,'' but ``there is no playbook to fight an unconventional war against an unconventional enemy that wears no uniform and acts without conscience, yet our forces have adapted and are performing brilliantly,'' and I agree with him. ``We fully respect congressional oversight and the first amendment rights of all Americans to debate issues of national importance, but the VFW is very concerned with the tone and timing of it,'' he said. ``We need to send the message to our troops that America wants them to succeed in Iraq by giving the buildup a chance to succeed.'' Mr. Speaker, I think the commander of the national VFW is absolutely right, and I thank the gentleman for yielding time.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. I yield to the gentleman

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member for yielding me this time. I rise in opposition to the resolution that will be voted on Friday. And my statement, as clearly as I can, says why. Mr. Speaker, I recently attended the funeral of an old friend who passed away after a wonderful, productive 90 years of life. His family and friends gathered at the church to celebrate his life and to remember his accomplishments. During World War II, he served as a member of the Army Air Corps. Near the end of the service, two Air Force sergeants unfolded and refolded an American flag, and then caringly presented it to my friend's widow saying, ``On behalf of the President of the United States, the United States Air Force, and a grateful American people, I present this flag in honor of your husband's service to his country.'' Mr. Speaker, we survive as a nation today in large part because of the selfless service to our country by a great many Americans just like my friend. Soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, members of the Coast Guard, and members of the foreign service organizations have been supported by the American people and by American resources and funding. Because we are once again involved in a war which threatens our country, we find American military personnel are again deployed to many parts of the world. Last week, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter Pace listed the long list of countries where our forces are deployed and are present to help protect us as part of the global war on terror. Earlier tonight, I read from that list. There are 70 countries where Americans serve abroad in support of the global war on terror. We don't send them there because we want to send them off to some far off part of the world for no good reason. There are threats there, threats like al Qaeda, threats like Hezbollah, threats like the Quad groups that are funded by Iran. This is a unique and historic struggle for a number of reasons. Chief among them is that our enemies are both state and nonstate actors. They are lethal and deadly. Fortunately, the great citizens of this country have responded. Americans have volunteered in large numbers to work, defend, and fight to protect our way of life. Yet, today some among us would question whether we are on the right track. And I think they are on the wrong track. As many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle know, I have devoted much of my career in Congress to studying and understanding this enemy. I must say that I believe I have developed some understanding of them, and so I would like to take a few minutes here tonight to share some thoughts and some facts about them. You simply cannot discuss or understand our situation in Iraq without first addressing some of the fundamental and important questions about the enemy. Who is he, or who are they? How do they work to achieve their goals on the battlefield? How do they work to achieve their international objectives? What is our record against them? And what is at stake? First of all, who are they? Members of al Qaeda and Hezbollah, the Quads forces, and other similar terrorist groups' view of the world is based on an extreme ideology, an ideology that is far more extreme than most Middle Eastern people want or support. I certainly can't speak for the citizens of the Middle East, but it seems clear to me that in the opinion of the great majority of citizens and residents of the Middle East, both Muslim and non-Muslim, that this is an extreme ideology which they feel they should reject. And they do. The extremists are groups of individuals who do not believe in any form of secular government, and will go to seemingly any lengths to sabotage others who try to establish secular or representative free types of governments. Their tactics run the gamut from sermonizing to mistreatment to capture, torture, and death, often by beheading. Their leaders are male and assign subservient roles to females. Their ideology holds that members of society, both Middle Eastern society and otherwise, who do not share their same radical beliefs are assigned to a subservient role or simply eliminated. They are members of organizations who state openly and repeatedly, ``Death to the non- believers, death to America.'' They say it every day. This, in short, is what they are about. Perhaps there are some of us here in Congress who don't take these people seriously. I do. And I am glad Franklin Roosevelt took Hitler and his people seriously as well. It is much the same. Twenty years ago, while on my second trip to Israel, it was 1987 to be exact, I came across an article about Hamas. In 1987, I had never heard of them before; they were a brand-new group. So while I was there, I asked about them. And I learned much about Hamas, but also about other groups that we hear about today, groups like Hezbollah and the Islamic Jihad, other groups that existed at the time. And I will always remember getting back on that airplane to come home. I thought, ``Today these people are a huge problem in the Middle East, and I bet it won't be long until they are a huge problem in the U.S.'' They are today. The second thing I would like to talk a little bit about is how they work to achieve their goals on the battlefield. It is kind of unique, certainly unique in history. Their radical ideology breeds an unconventional strategy of violence, and they are not to be underestimated. This is the method to their violence: They have recognized that it is difficult or impossible for them to achieve their goals through conventional warfare strategies and techniques. They have instituted as a substitute a four-stage process that replaces traditional warfare, at least traditional warfare as we know it in the West. Their strategy is well laid out and planned; it is called insurgency. Four steps. First, they work quietly to gain the support of the population through social, charitable, and ideological groups and organizations, schools, hospitals, charities. They gain the support of the people. Second, now that they have developed some strength in organization, they begin to develop strength in unconventional warfare capabilities. Unconventional warfare capabilities, terrorism, if you will, until their ability exists to severely harass their enemy, usually the superior legitimate force, the government of whatever country they happen to be operating in. This is often the traditional or newly created government, just like the one that we are dealing with in Iraq. And in this way, they build popular support through unconventional warfare successes as well as through charities. Step three. They develop the ability to reconsider the danger of counterattack posed by the stronger legitimate force or government, and the ability to fade away temporarily into the population until the pressure is off so they can come back and fight again, all the time getting stronger, all the time carrying out their work through the charities and the schools and the hospitals, and the terrorist acts against their enemy. Finally, the fourth step, they develop it over time, the conventional capabilities that are necessary to be used against the stronger traditional force with the objective of defeating the legitimate government. If that sounds familiar, it should, because it is exactly what is happening in Iraq. This is the traditional four-step insurgency process first used in China by Mao in the 1920s, and in Vietnam during the 1960s and 1970s. Studying this concept, one can apply it to various theaters around the world in the global war on terror and identify various stages in various theaters in many places in the world. I believe, for example, Hezbollah in Lebanon has worked its way nearly to the fourth stage of the insurgency process. Other groups like al Qaeda in Iraq are following the same course elsewhere. The third thing I would like to talk about a little bit is how they work to achieve superiority strategically internationally. Let's look at the process, the process that fosters the doubt that some citizens in the U.S. have today. That is why we are here tonight. Some people doubt our capabilities. And this is the type of thinking that brings us here tonight. This is the doubt that fuels the desire to disengage, to pretend that the danger doesn't exist, to discuss, as we are here today or tonight, solutions to limit our success and move toward disengagement. The enemy has demonstrated a strong understanding and some success internationally in developing this unconventional strategy of warfare. It has evolved something like this: In the early 19th century, armies met each other on the battlefield, frontline to frontline. We all remember looking at those old movies of wars in the 19th century. Warriors were trained in techniques aimed at defeating their foe's frontlines so as to prevail on the battlefield. There was little thought, planning, or training given to reaching beyond the frontlines in battle, much less to strike directly at central governments. Today, this strategy of warfare is called first- generation warfare. Then, during the 20th century, specifically during World War I and World War II, two new generations of warfare evolved. During World War I, armies were trained to carry out tactics not only against frontlines but also against logistical supply lines. The intent was to damage the enemy's ability by reaching back beyond the battlefield frontline. This is called second-generation warfare. World War II brought about third-generation warfare by using tactics to reach even further behind the lines to attack the industrial production facilities of the enemy's central governments. Finally, the most recent evolution, strategic and tactical execution of warfare, designed as fourth-generation warfare. The goal, to destroy the determination of the enemy's decisionmakers to continue the fight. Today's decisionmakers are the citizens of Europe and the rest of the West, including, of course, the United States and the decisionmakers of the United States Congress. Unconventional tools have been used by al Qaeda through fourth-generation warfare and other groups to convince the decisionmakers to discontinue the effort. Unconventional tools such as the Western media, terrorist acts such as those on 9/11, and unconventional warfare such as killing Shiia citizens, Sunni citizens and coalition military participants with IEDs and car and truck bombs. Through the media, every one of these acts which is reported has an effect and carries a message intentionally to discourage decisionmakers, and that is precisely the plan. That is precisely why we are having this debate tonight. That brings us to the debate today. Often American decisionmakers have been convinced through fourth-generation warfare used by al Qaeda and used by other groups, Shiia militias, Sunni insurgents, to convince some here to vote to discontinue necessary efforts in one of the central theaters of the global war on terror, Iraq, and hence convince us not to provide the level of national security so important to the citizens and children and future generations of the United States of America. Fourth, let me talk about understanding the consequences of withdrawal and our record. Withdrawal under fire is unacceptable and history is replete with examples of harmful consequences in doing so. Lebanon and Somalia are two examples where we presently face increased threats to our national security as a result of previously ill-timed withdrawals. As a result of the U.S. withdrawal in Lebanon, for example, after the Marine barracks bombing in 1983, the country, Lebanon, even today remains a terrorist hotbed. The withdrawal strengthened Hezbollah. It contributed to years of civil war in Lebanon. It diminished U.S. prestige in the region and influence throughout much of the world. The lingering question: Could the U.S. have prevented the rise of Hezbollah and the influence of Tehran with sustained engagement in Lebanon? We will never know. In 1993, we withdrew our forces from Somalia after a failed military operation in Mogadishu. A decade later an Islamic militia with ties to al Qaeda has controlled that country and is responsible for destabilizing the entire Horn of Africa. We didn't know it at the time. We decided to withdraw. It was a mistake. This radical movement briefly shows signs of regaining lost ground in Somalia, even today. At the very least, Somalia remains a dangerous, ungoverned place, and the lingering question, could the United States have prevented the spread of radicalism in the Horn of Africa with a sustained engagement in Somalia, but we withdrew. Further evidence of failure to respond to terrorism emboldened al Qaeda. In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed. No response. In 1996, Khobar Towers were bombed. No response. In 1998, the U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania took place. No response. In 2000, the attack on the USS Cole took place. No response. Result? September 11. We are not alone. The Soviet Union and Israel both paid heavy prices for implementing a precipitous withdrawal on two separate occasions. The Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989 and left behind the conditions of anarchy and warlordism, which ultimately led to the rise of the Taliban and provided safe haven for al Qaeda. Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 resulted in an empowered Hezbollah, weakened Lebanese moderates failed to keep peace. The best example was Hezbollah's naked aggression this past summer in delivering unbelievable attacks against Israel's civilian population. As one commentator has put it, this is from Victor Hanson in the National Review Online, December 1, 2006, ``By not responding to a decade of prior attacks in East Africa, New York, Saudi Arabia and Yemen and withdrawing precipitously from Lebanon and Mogadishu, we gave the fatal impression that terrorists could strike the U.S. with near impunity.'' That is what we are talking about doing now in Iraq. The lesson here is obvious. We must remain engaged until we complete our mission. Finally, what is at stake? It is clear that al Qaeda and other groups constitute a serious threat to the citizens of the U.S. for this generation and, even more importantly, for the future generations. Our enemies have demonstrated significant success in carrying out activities to the detriment of the citizens of the U.S. They have successfully attacked numerous targets overseas, mostly with explosives, and have used missiles known as jumbo jets to attack New York City and Pennsylvania and at the Pentagon, and they have used explosives in terror operations in Afghanistan, and even more successfully in Iraq to pit the minority Sunni population against the Shiia. They fueled the insurgency and have cost Sunni, Shiia, as well as the lives of U.S. soldiers. Our choices may be difficult. It is not easy to be at war. It is even harder to stay at war, but it is clearly proven by history that we must not abandon the missions in the war on terror nor in the Iraqi theater. We have seen the results of the precipitous withdrawals. It would be unconscionable to vote and to do other than to support the administration's plan.

Mr. SAXTON. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Hoekstra for yielding. I would just like to build on something that Mr. Shadegg said. He said, in essence, that this subject is so important because it goes so much further than Iraq. And as a member of the Armed Services Committee, I try to keep close tabs on where our soldiers and sailors and marines and airmen are deployed. And it may surprise some on the other side of the aisle, but perhaps not, to know that we have troops deployed in Southwest Asia in five countries; we have troops deployed in Europe in quite a few countries, several countries; in Central Asia we have troops in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan; in Southeast Asia we have troops deployed in the Philippines, Thailand, and Indonesia; in South America in Colombia, Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, and Guantanamo Bay; and in 19 countries in Africa, all in support of the war on terror. And as Mr. Shadegg mentioned a few minutes ago, it has been clearly stated that Iraq is the first battleground chosen to make their stand and clearly stated that all of these other places where we have sent troops, not because we have extra troops to send somewhere, not because we have extra taxpayer dollars that we are trying to get rid of or spend, but because every one of those countries exhibits a piece of geography where there is a threat related to the global war on terror. So a vote for this resolution is a vote, perhaps, of goodwill on the part of those who will eventually in a few days vote for it, but it won't end this war. It won't end the desire of the Islamists to take advantage of various situations and, as Mr. Hoekstra mentioned, achieve their goals. And so this is a broad war. This is a war where it will be years and perhaps decades to bring to a conclusion. And the worst thing we can do is to send messages that we are not serious about carrying out our duties in defense of this generation and, as I will point out later, future generations of Americans.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Madam Speaker, since coming to Congress in 1984, I have consistently supported efforts to protect and conserve many wildlife species. I am an enthusiastic defender of the Endangered Species Act and have voted in favor of the African Elephant Conservation Act of 1988, the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994, the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 2000, the Great Ape Conservation Act of 2000 and the Marine Turtle Conservation Act of 2004. In fact, several of these laws were reauthorized or initially enacted during my 6-year tenure as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans. During this period, I conducted numerous oversight hearings on these conservation programs and I became intimately aware of the plight of Asian elephants. Frankly, I was startled to learn that in the early 1990s there were less than 40,000 Asian elephants living throughout the world in the wild. These wild populations were located in 13 south and southeastern Asian countries. In addition, there were only 14 populations of 1,000 or more individual elephants in a contiguous area which greatly reduced the long-term viability of this species. In response to this international wildlife crisis, I introduced the Asian Elephant Conservation Act of 1997. After hearings, markups and floor debate, I was honored that President Bill Clinton signed this important legislation into law on November 7, 1997. The fundamental goal of Public Law 105-96 was to create the Asian Elephant Conservation Fund. During the past decade, the Secretary of the Interior has carefully reviewed nearly 300 conservation grant proposals to assist beleaguered Asian elephants. I am pleased to report that 171 grants have been awarded to various governmental and non-governmental entities. These grants have received $7.8 million in Federal funds and in excess of $10 million in private matching money. The types of approved projects funded include emergency elephant conservation support for those countries adversely affected by the tsunami disaster in Indonesia; erecting fences in Sri Lanka; establishing an elephant conservation working group in Thailand; promoting eco-tourism of elephants; increase the capacity of wildlife rangers in India; assess the habitat needs of elephants in Malaysia and implement a program for monitoring the illegal killing of elephants. Among the recipients of these grants were the Conservation International, Sri Lanka Wildlife Conservation Society, Wildlife Conservation Society, Wild Fund for Nature and Wildlife Trust of India. Madam Speaker, these conservation funds have had a profound impact on protecting these irreplaceable species and in the long run I am convinced they will help to ensure that they will not disappear in the future. By allowing a small amount of Federal funds, our Government has been able to finance worthwhile projects to stop the extinction of Asian elephants. The legislation I am proposing today, the Asian Elephant Conservation Reauthorization Act, will extend this vital law at existing authorization levels until September 30, 2012. This will allow the Secretary of the Interior to approve additional meritious projects in the future. Ten years ago, during the initial hearing on my bill, H.R. 1787, a representative of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service testified that: ``the Asian Elephant Conservation Act would . . . send a strong message to the world that the people of the United States care deeply about Asian elephants and that the U.S. Government is committed to helping preserve this keystone species.'' There is no question that we need to reauthorize this important law and I urge my colleagues to work with me to make this a reality. As President Theodore Roosevelt once noted, ``the nation behaves well if it treats its natural resources as assets which it must turn over to the next generation, increased and not impaired in value.'' The road to extinction is a one-way street and we must work to ensure that the Asian elephant does not make that journey.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, let me just begin by recognizing the true bipartisan nature of this bill. The bipartisan nature of this bill is due in no small part to our great chairman and my friend, Duncan Hunter, and the person that he often refers to as his partner, Congressman Ike Skelton, and their respective staffs. Ike, thank you very much for your great cooperation, and for working through the summer as conferees with our colleagues in the Senate to fine tune this measure to provide the maximum benefit to our troops in every possible area, from pay to health care to equipment to armor and to advanced weapons systems for now and those contemplated far into the future. We funded 11 of the top unfunded requirements for the U.S. Special Operations Command, adding almost $200 million to the command's acquisition budget. We also funded technology initiatives within each of the services and in DARPA, ensuring the continued future supremacy of U.S. weapons systems and equipment. Cutting-edge medical research was also addressed. Seeing a continued greater need for modernization airlift, one the Air Force clearly needed but could not afford, we authorized 12 C-17 aircraft requested by DOD and added 10 more, for a total of 22 C-17 aircraft. I see this as a good start and hope we can continue to fund the C-17 line in future years. The best Army and Marine Corps in the world, which is that which we have, must be able to get to the fight to be effective. We haven't forgotten our oversight responsibilities, providing for a number of initiatives in the acquisition, information technology and chemical demilitarization areas. Mr. Speaker, this is a time of great stress for our Nation for we are in a war which has been referred to in many different terms, but most soberingly, the long war. This is a bill that every American can be proud of. Republicans and Democrats have come together to build a measure that helps soldiers and their families across the board. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I can think of no reason that this measure should not pass unanimously. It outlaws torture, mandates decent treatment for unlawful enemy combatants who are in our custody, protects Americans from frivolous lawsuits and prosecutions, and, most critically, provides a fair, balanced and civilized process by which the international war criminals may be held accountable for their action. The world has waited long enough to bring these men to justice. Vote ``yes'' on this measure.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6166. Ladies and gentleman, this is not an ordinary bill. This is an urgently needed measure to fill a gaping hole in our legal system, both in our ability to bring criminals of 9/11 to justice, the bombings of the USS Cole and the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania to justice, and to protect our American troops and agents from frivolous prosecutions and lawsuits. It is no exaggeration to say that this is the most important measure to come before this body in this Congress. Without this bill, the mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who deliberated and cold-bloodedly plotted the death of thousands of Americans, would go unpunished for his crimes upon humanity. Yes, we are a nation of laws. The Supreme Court has called upon the Congress to act, and that is what we will do. We have produced an extraordinarily fair criminal process here to adjudicate the fate of these terrorists. Those who would find the court procedures laid out in this bill wanting will never be satisfied until we are reading Miranda rights on the battlefield. We have carefully narrowed and crafted the provisions of this bill to enable the United States to prosecute the perpetrators of the 1998 bombings of the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the 2000 attack on the USS Cole, and other crimes that have been committed. Yes, these were suicide attacks and the men who delivered the explosives were killed, along with innocent victims, but the planner, logisticians, and financiers of those operations remain at large. Importantly, this bill allows, as all Americans believe it should, the criminal prosecutions of those who purposefully and materially supported these criminal activities. And, of course, the measure covers those responsible for 9/11 as well. Mr. Speaker, I can think of no reason that this measure should not pass unanimously. It outlaws torture. Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5450--the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Act. During the more than 20 years I have been in Congress, I have made it a priority to promote the protection of our oceans and effective conservation and management of our living marine resources. From protecting coastal wetlands to cleaning up our estuaries to promoting sustainable fisheries to preventing ocean pollution--all have been priorities during my tenure in Congress. We have accomplished a great deal but, as highlighted by the more than 200 reconmendations contained in the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy report, much remains to be done. NOAA was created by an Executive Order in 1970, but has never been formally authorized. Both the U.S. and Pew Ocean Commissions argued strongly for an organic statute for NOAA. A comprehensive organic act will significantly strengthen the agency by providing a clear mandate from Congress to the nation's lead civilian agency for oceans and atmosphere. An organic statute is needed to codify and strengthen NOAA and thereby enhance its mission, improve its structure, and better enable it to carry out existing and new responsibilities in a manner that is consistent with ecosystem-based management. H.R. 5450 represents real progress toward strengthening NOAA and is an important first step in developing the comprehensive mandate NOAA requires. I look forward to working with Chairman Ehlers and colleagues to develop the additional provisions needed to incorporate guidance on fishery management, coastal zone management, ocean imapping and charting, and other resources-related issues. Such provisions are essential if NOAA is to effectively carry out the host of ocean-related activities essential to our nation's economic and environmental interests. Nevertheless, the bill in its current form represents a welcome effort to address a major hurdle that impedes the federal government's ability to effectively govern our oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes. Passage of H.R. 5450 will send a clear signal that the health and productivity of our nation's oceans are a priority to the U.S. House of Representatives. I commend Chairman Ehlers for his leadership on this issue and I urge mny colleagues to support H.R. 5450.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5381--The National Fish Hatchery System Volunteer Act of 2006 will enhance a volunteer program and promote community partnerships for the benefit of our Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) fish hatcheries and fisheries program offices across the nation. H.R. 5381 is modeled on the successful partnership and volunteer laws for the National Wildlife Refuges. I was proud to sponsor the legislation that established the partnership and volunteer laws for the refuges and am equally proud to be the sponsor of the bill under consideration today. The FWS National Fish Hatchery System consists of more than 60 hatcheries, 7 fish technology centers, 9 fish health centers and other fisheries program offices. The system plays an integral role in the recovery of more than 50 threatened and endangered species and the restoration of more than 100 native species. It helps to provide healthy fish populations that support recreational fishing opportunities, working with over 250 partners to help mitigate the impacts of aquatic habitat loss and invasive species. Currently, the system faces many challenges, including aging facilities and infrastructure. In 1998 and 2004, Congress passed legislation that enhanced the ability of the National Wildlife Refuge System to use volunteers and work with partner groups. These acts gave authority for the refuge system to: accept gifts and bequests from individuals to specific refuges; carry out volunteer enhancement programs; enter into cooperative agreements with partner organizations; and develop guidance for refuge education programs. The purpose of this legislation is to provide the National Fisheries Program the same authorities that were given to the National Wildlife Refuge System. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment. NOAA is our lead ocean agency, overseeing programs to promote healthy oceans, coastal areas and communities. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy highlighted the need for new and sustained investments in ocean and coastal programs to meet our current and future challenges. Failing to make these investments will jeopardize the economic and ecological benefits our Nation receives from its oceans and coasts. Although I understand difficult decisions must be made in the limited budget available for fiscal year 2007, H.R. 5672 would decimate funding for our coastal programs including cooperative fisheries research; coastal and estuarine land conservation; ocean exploration and undersea research; oil spill response and restoration; and our National Estuarine Research Reserves. These programs provide important, on-the- ground benefits to our coastal communities at relatively little Federal expense. Cuts to our Coastal Zone Management Program in New Jersey would result in the elimination of their coastal hazards training program to assist our communities prepare and respond to hurricanes. They would also be forced to eliminate their Clean Marina program. These are just a few examples of what would be lost if this level of funding remains. Our Nation has put 16 men on the surface of the Moon and only sent two to the bottom of the ocean. It is time we put Earth first--we can go to other planets later. I urge my colleagues to support the Gilchrest amendment and restore NOAA funding to the fiscal year 2005 level.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. I thank the gentleman for emphasizing the importance of tax policy relative to economic growth. One of the things that I would like to point out, and I know the gentleman knows this as well, the President today has been criticized by some for his tax policy, I think, unfairly. One of the charges that is often made is that these are, quote, tax cuts for the rich. I have some other statistics here that I would just like to share with my colleagues and that is simply this: if you believe that tax policy can be used to promote economic growth, as the gentleman and I do and as many others in this House do, then we are going to have to cut taxes relative to the people who pay taxes, because people who don't pay taxes can't get a tax cut because they don't pay taxes, unless we give them money back. And so the facts are that the top 1 percent of the wage earners in this country pay 34 percent of the taxes. That is the individual income taxes. The top 5 percent of the people, wage earners, pay 54 percent of the taxes to the Federal Government. The top 10 percent pay 65 percent of the taxes. The top 25 percent pay 84 percent of the taxes. And the top 50 percent of the wage earners in this country pay 96.5 percent. So the bottom 50 percent of the wage earners in America, in the United States, pay about 3.5 percent of the taxes. So if we are going to have tax cuts and if the people who pay taxes are the ones whose taxes you cut, which you kind of have to do by definition, then it will fall that the top 50 percent of the wage earners get most of the tax breaks because they are paying 96.5 percent of all the taxes that are paid on the personal side in this country. So because of what has gone on in Republican and Democrat administrations, and the gentleman mentioned John Kennedy's inaugural address in 1962. I can remember his words, almost, not quite, but he said something like this. He said, we cannot for long expect to remain the leaders of the world if we fail to set the economic pace at home; and he stood right up there on that lectern and outlined a set of tax cuts to make the economy grow. And John Kennedy's tax cuts went into effect, and the economy did grow. So this is not new to many here, but it is a revelation sometimes to people who haven't heard this before. So our economy is growing. It has been growing since 2001. Since 2003, when we put in place our tax cuts, we began to see investment take hold and the economy grow and jobs being created, almost 6 million new jobs created since this economic recovery began; a low rate of unemployment, 4.6 percent, and things looking pretty good for the future, according to the blue chip indicators, which we referred to earlier. So, Mr. Speaker, I went on to share with my fellow Members these observations based on the facts that the gentleman from Georgia and I have cited here; and I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia for coming here and taking part in this Special Order. I think we can look forward, Mr. Speaker, to some good economic growth going forward, hopefully during 2006 as well as 2007 and beyond, as we continue to do what we can here to make that happen. Again, I thank the gentleman for taking part.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to say a few words about the U.S. economy, which has been actually quite good. It is quite amazing for us here in the House with all of the responsibilities that we have and with all of the responsibilities outside of the beltway that the American people have to just take a minute or a few minutes, I guess, to review the current economic situation. Mr. Speaker, as the chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, some of the observations are quite apparent to me, and I just wanted to share these observations with my colleagues and with others who may be present. According, Mr. Speaker, to most neutral observers, including the Federal Reserve and a consensus of private economists, the economy is doing quite well and is quite healthy. Indeed, if anything, there seems to be a little concern in some quarters that the economy may have been growing too fast, a concern with which I do not agree. The economy actually grew 4 percent in 2004 and advanced at a rate of about 3.5 percent in 2005. The growth rate for the first quarter of 2006 is expected to be very robust, consistent with the trend of strong growth since 2003. In the first quarter of 2006, the economy expanded at a blistering rate of 5.3 percent. Now, these are all figures and statistics that we can vividly see because, in effect, we have already been through them. Looking ahead is a somewhat more difficult exercise, and an exercise that I often refer to others with whom I communicate from time to time. I have here in my hand a copy of the ``Blue Chip Economic Indicators Top Analysts Forecast of U.S. Economic Outlook for the Year Ahead.'' This blue chip economic indicator document was actually issued just a few days ago on June 10. And for those who may not be familiar with this report, it is essentially a compilation of the beliefs based on what they see, of a variety of organizations and individuals from organizations which will be quite familiar if you hear who they are. There are actually 50-plus organizations that take part in this process, organizations like Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, the National Association of Home Builders, Merrill-Lynch Economics, General Motors Corporation, Standard and Poor's. And those, of course, are just a few of the more than 50 organizations that take part in this economic forecast. You might suspect that since I have got it here with me it is good news, and it is good news for the economy going forward. It projects that in the second quarter of this year, the quarter that will end just a few days from now on June 30, the economic growth rate, the GDP, will continue to grow at almost 3 percent; and in the third quarter of this year at 2.9 percent; in the fourth quarter of this year at 2.8 percent; jumping back up in two quarters of next year to 3.1 and 3 percent respectively. And so these are good numbers; and so going forward, based on the economic basis that we have been able to set in our country, we expect things to continue to do quite well. The improvement in economic growth in recent years is reflected by some very good economic figures. For example, since August 2003, business payrolls have increased by over 5.3 million jobs. The unemployment rate stands at a low 4.6 percent. Consumer spending continues to grow, and the number of American families who own their own homes is at an all-time high. The household net worth for families in the United States is also at a record high. Productivity growth continues at a healthy pace. Long- term inflation pressures appear to be contained at about 2.7 percent or so. Long-term interest rates, including mortgage rates are still relatively low. I can relate to this very well. I was in the real estate business for 20 years before I came here. I can remember in the 1960s selling houses with 6 percent, with mortgages that carried an interest rate of 6 percent. It was pretty much a standard rate. Then as the years went by and inflationary pressures took hold, inflation drove interest rates to 6 percent, 6\1/2\ percent, 8 percent, 10 percent. Mr. Speaker, I can even remember interest rates on home mortgages being 19 percent, and of course that shut the market down. Recently, interest rates for home mortgages have been at about 5 percent. But today, even today, when we think about interest rates being higher than they were a year or a year and a half ago, they are still at about the 1960s level of 6 percent or a little bit higher. So low interest rates are still an incentive to economic growth. In addition, the resilience and flexibility of the economy have overcome a number of serious shocks: the war, the attacks on 9/11, and of course most recently the hurricanes of last year, all disruptive influences which have not been as disruptive as one may have thought. Equipment and software investment has been strong. It is clear that the Federal Reserve remains poised to keep inflation under control. All good news. The only soft spot that we see in the economy is in the housing sector. It seems to be slowing somewhat, although it appears that a soft landing is most likely. So in the recent policy report to Congress, like the Blue Chip Indicators, the Federal Reserve noted that the U.S. economy delivered a solid performance in 2005. Furthermore, the Fed observed that the U.S. economy should continue to perform well in 2006 and 2007. In summary, overall economic conditions appear to remain positive. The U.S. economy has displayed remarkable flexibility and resilience in dealing with many shocks. The administration forecast for economic growth in 2006 is comparable with those of the blue chip consensus and the Federal Reserve. With growth expected to be about 3.5 percent in 2006, the current economic situation is solid and the outlook remains favorable. Mr. Speaker, in December of 2005, this is another way to look at the economy, the Joint Economic Committee issued a report, under my direction, entitled ``U.S. Economy Outperformed the Canadian, European and Japanese Economies Since 2001.'' When we look at our U.S. economy and have comparisons within the economy, that is one way to look at economic growth. But another way is to compare it with what is going on in the rest of the world. The economic data showed that since 2001, the United States has outperformed every other large developed economy in the world. This report examines the performance of a peer group of large developed economies from 2001 to the present time. The peer group included Canada, Japan, the United States, and 25 member states of the European Union. Recently, we updated this report to bring it current. The United States and Canada in the most recent version of this report tied for first place in economic growth among the major developed economies with an average gross domestic product growth of 2.6 percent a year from 2005 to the current period. That compares with just 1.6 percent economic growth in the European Union and 1.5 percent in Japan. The period includes the economic slowdown after the collapse of the stock market bubble in 2000 and the terrorist attack of 2001. However, after Congress cut taxes on capital gains and dividends and provided business with incentives in May of 2003, the United States enjoyed the highest rate of economic growth among the major developed countries. This is a point that I would just like to stop and pause for a moment to talk a little bit more about. We knew that economic growth while we were growing beginning in the fourth quarter of 2001, when we began to grow, job growth was very slow. The President said, and the Congress agreed, that if we gave business some incentives to invest, that investment in fact would take place and that we would grow. That actually happened. As we see on this chart, we had this valley of very slow growth and very little invested in the economy during 2001 and 2002. But after the tax cuts that took place in the first quarter of 2003, business investment occurred rapidly and it helped to spur economic growth throughout the economy. For example, the United States created more jobs than any other major economy from 2001 to 2006: 6 million jobs as of today created in the United States, 5.7 million jobs in the European Union, 1.5 million jobs in Canada, and a loss of almost 1 million jobs in Japan. The unemployment rate. In March of 2006, the United States had an unemployment rate of 4.6 percent. That is the second lowest among the major developed economies. Only Japan was better with 4.1. Canada was actually 6.4. Here is the unemployment rate in the United States; 4.6 percent in the yellow bar, actually 6.3 percent in Canada, and 8.4 percent unemployment rate in the European Union. In industrial production, another example, from January 2001 to February 2005, the United States ranks first in the growth of industrial production among major developed economies. Industrial production grew by 7.4 percent in the United States, 4.1 percent in Canada, 2.8 percent in the European Union, and 1.4 percent in Japan. The rate of inflation is more good news. It has remained contained throughout the countries that were studied. As I noted a little while ago in the United States, interest rates are comparatively low with other countries. And so as we look at the economy generally, we believe that we have done some things right. I mentioned tax policy a minute ago. Let me mention one other item which I think is extremely important. While we give credit to our friends at the Federal Reserve, interest rates are a direct reflection, or follow along as a reflection, I guess is a better way of putting it, of the rate of inflation. And so we have to give credit to our friends at the Federal Reserve who have done a great job in controlling inflation. Another prominent feature of the recent U.S. economy is in fact a lower and more stable rate of inflation than we have experienced in quite some time. The persistently low rate of inflation depicted on this chart there has helped to calm financial markets and reduce risk. This persistently lower rate of inflation has in turn fostered lower expectations of future inflation and consequently helped to lower the lid and keep interest rates low. As we look here, we see that back in the eighties we had relatively high inflation, and as we went through the nineties, we can see that inflation actually dropped below 2 percent and has persistently stayed below 2 percent. The Fed has in essence adopted an implicit inflation targeting approach which has been very good for economic growth. I would like to just conclude my portion of these remarks by saying that the blue chip indicators look good going forward and we have done some things right both here in the House and at the Federal Reserve. One of the things that I like to say about economic growth is that no matter what we do here, economic growth can't take place without the continued enthusiastic participation of the American worker. We try to provide those opportunities as best we can through our tax and spending policies, through the Federal Reserve's policy, through business incentives that we time and again put in place to encourage things to happen. But in the final analysis, it is the American working man and woman out there in the private sector that make economic growth possible. I would like to yield at this point to my friend from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) who would like to add some thoughts perhaps to what I have said.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, the Honorable Dale E. Klein, currently the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense Programs, departs his post this week to assume the position of Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Born and educated in Missouri, Vice Chancellor for Special Engineering Programs in the University of Texas System, and on leave from his position as Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering (Nuclear Programs) at the University of Texas in Austin, Dr. Klein, as the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense from November 2001 to June 2006, led the Department of Defense's efforts to combat weapons of mass destruction at a watershed time in history. In this position, he served as the principal staff assistant and advisor to the Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary of Defense, and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology for all matters concerning the formulation of policy and plans for nuclear weapons, and nuclear, chemical, and biological defense. He was directly responsible to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense for matters associated with nuclear weapons safety and security, chemical weapons demilitarization, chemical and biological defense programs, cooperative threat reduction, treaties, and agreements. In this capacity, he was responsible for the day-to-day oversight of four organizations responsible for billions of dollars in providing combat support operations to the Theater Commanders in support of the Global War on Terrorism, Counterproliferation and Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction. In addition, he was responsible for the Research and Development, Testing and Evaluation, and Acquisition Life-cycle Planning for systems to combat Weapons of Mass Destruction and to survive in a contaminated environment. Dr. Klein personally facilitated international cooperation in the area of nuclear weapons safety and security by ensuring active and relevant bi-Iateral dialogue was ongoing between several nuclear nations. These actions directly helped ensure proper stewardship of the enduring nuclear weapons stockpile by several nations, while maintaining adherence to numerous international treaties and agreements, such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. These programmatic actions serve to help mitigate the threat nuclear weapons pose to world order, while ensuring the President retains a credible deterrent option. He supported and electrified President Bush's aims for the NATO- Russia Council. Desiring to see NATO and Russia move forward, together, to face common challenges and build ties that expand with time, Dr. Klein helped facilitate and institute numerous initiatives in the realm of nuclear and chemical and biological defense programs. These challenges include countering terrorism, preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction, search and rescue operations at sea, and emergency planning. Dr. Klein led the establishment of a significant new effort in medical bio-warfare defense. The Transformational Medical Technology Initiative (TMTI) focuses more than $1 billion over the next five years to develop broad-spectrum medical countermeasures against advanced bio- terror threats, including genetically engineered pathogens. Dr. Klein provided the Chemical Demilitarization Program with the oversight and policy guidance that led to the successful start of five new chemical weapons destruction facilities. Under Dr. Klein's Leadership, the Chemical Demilitarization Program led the international community in compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention obligations while maintaining the safety and security of the workers, the environment and the public during the destruction of the U.S. chemical weapons stockpile and former chemical weapons production facilities. His endeavors produced extraordinary results and will have a lasting impact on the quality of many of the programs vital to the Department of Defense. They include such significant accomplishments as: successful stewardship of the U.S. nuclear deterrent enterprise; spearheading efforts to develop science and technology programs aimed at establishing the backbone of Domestic Nuclear Defense; personally facilitating international cooperation in the area of nuclear weapons safety and security; and development of capabilities to defeat improvised explosive devices, special weapons, hardened targets, and WMD stockpiles and production facilities. Dale Klein accelerated national security in the critical areas of nuclear weapons safety and security, chemical weapons demilitarization, chemical and biological defense programs, cooperative threat reduction, and nuclear, chemical, and biological treaties and agreements. His leadership, vision, and tenacity were the driving forces in transforming the Department of Defense's approach to nuclear, chemical and biological defense while proactively seeking new and revolutionary technologies to address future threats. Dr. Klein's achievements and dedication represent the highest traditions of public service.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. As I noted earlier today, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Hunter, who is chairman of the Armed Services Committee, is not here today due to an important personal commitment, and he asked me to state his opposition to this amendment. The issue of authorization and funding for public affairs and information operations in Iraq has been monitored and discussed by the Armed Services Committee to some length. Information operations are vital, as our good chairman from Florida just pointed out. In Iraq the United States faces a determined enemy that attempts to manipulate the media, often with the purpose of further endangering U.S. forces. Chairman Hunter, in fact, has pledged to hold hearings on this matter. But let me just point out, as Chairman Young just so eloquently stated, information dissemination on the battlefield and in the countries that are affected in a direct way by warfare such as Iraq is extremely important. Earlier today we had that in mind when Chairman Young led us in opposition to an amendment proposed by another Member because of the message it sent. Messages in Iraq and other countries torn by war are extremely important. As a matter of fact, we devote a great deal of time, effort, and money to train members of our military forces in operations called psychological operations. As a matter of fact, we used them extensively during the invasion of Iraq, not through the contractor that is in question here, but through our military personnel who are trained to do just that. The use of broadcast has traditionally been an important part of information operations as well. So Chairman Hunter and the rest of us on the Armed Services Committee and the Defense Appropriations Committee have paid a lot of attention to this matter for many reasons. I am sure the committee will continue to do so if necessary. And Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England has informed us on the Armed Services Committee that he is reviewing this matter very closely. In the meantime, General Casey in Iraq and the Department of Defense inspector general are both investigating the use of funds by the Lincoln Group and by the Rendon Group. The results of the Casey investigation are expected to be released in the near future. I could only say on behalf of Chairman Hunter that the Armed Services Committee will continue to monitor closely and will take appropriate action as needed. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, Chairman Hunter, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee is not here today due to a important personal commitment in his district, and he asked me to state his opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I think it goes without saying that this is an extremely important provision, and this amendment would do, in my opinion and in Chairman Hunter's opinion, great damage to the ability of our country to provide national security for the American people. That is why the administration also strongly opposes the Inslee- Schiff amendment. It is a direct effort to cut off the President's ability to engage in surveillance pursuant to his constitutional authority, and the authorization to use military force as passed by the Congress. The program has been briefed to all members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. They are fully briefed to all aspects of the terrorist surveillance program and are conducting oversight. I would just point out NSA Director General Hayden said on January 23, 2006, at the National Press Club, ``The TSP allows interception of the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. There are no communications more important to the safety of this country than those affiliated with al Qaeda with one end in the United States. The purpose here is to detect and prevent future attacks.'' In underscoring the importance of this, on January 25, 2 days later, the President of the United States said, ``The 9/11 Commission made clear in this era of new dangers, we must be able to connect the dots before the terrorists strike so we can stop new attacks.'' And the NSA program, he said, is doing just that. Those of us on the Armed Services Committee and other Members of Congress in various other capacities work night and day trying to provide a high level of national security for our country. This amendment would do damage to that effort. It would make that effort at least much more difficult. To the credit of the CIA and to the credit of the administration and our government generally, we have been able to get through the years since September 11, 2001, without additional attacks. The activities are reviewed for this program every 45 days. We are making every attempt to make sure that this program is carried out correctly and safely and doesn't infringe on the rights of the American people. The NSA's activities under this authorization are thoroughly reviewed by the Justice Department and NSA's top legal officials, including NSA's general counsel and inspector general. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution. Mr. Speaker, when I was a freshman, Ronald Reagan was President and I was invited to the White House with a group of people to talk to Ronald Reagan about things we thought were important. We talked for a long time about many issues, and when we finished, the President leaned forward in his chair and said: Let me say something to each of you. All of those things are important. They are all about America but nothing is more important than a system of national security that will protect our right to deal with those issues. I wish more people had been with me that day because I think of that every morning on my way to work. It appears that there are some who question the sacrifices of the United States Armed Forces and our coalition partners in Iraq who make every effort to advance the global war on terror, to combat the al Qaeda and the affiliate organizations that work with them. How misguided. Nothing could be further from the truth. Iraq is a critical front in the global war on terror. Separating Iraq from the global war on terror, in my opinion, is a recipe for disaster. Do not take my word for it. Listen to the enemy. These are the enemy's words. The leadership of al Qaeda has made Iraq an important part of its goal of spreading and imposing its ideology around the world. According to al Qaeda, defeating the coalition forces in Iraq is the first phase of its stated strategic goal of establishing a Taliban- like rule throughout the Middle East. In a July 2005 communication from Ayman al Zawahiri, al Qaeda's second-in-command right behind bin Laden, to the now-deceased leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, Zawarhiri explicitly states the centrality of the war in Iraq with a global jihad. Bin Laden's right-hand man laid it out like this. Here are the goals: expel the Americans from Iraq; establish an Islamic authority in Iraq; extend the jihad to the countries neighboring Iraq; and destroy Israel. Those are the goals stated by al Qaeda. We must not lose sight of the fact that a successful prosecution of the global war on terrorism and defeating al Qaeda and its affiliates require us to pay attention to multiple locations in the world, including Iraq. Though we have made progress, the threat remains global in nature. Since September 11, al Qaeda has planned, supported, or executed attacks leading to the deaths of innocent civilians around the world. According to the Defense Intelligence Agency, there are active jihadists, radical terrorist organizations with the goal of taking control of governments and territories in countries across the globe, including Iraq and Afghanistan, of course; Israel; Saudi Arabia; Pakistan; Somalia; Algeria; Chechnya; Kashmir; and the Philippines and others. The same report states that al Qaeda maintains and plans to expand safe havens throughout the world, throughout the Middle East, in Asia, in central Asia and Europe, in many countries in Africa, and we know of the terrorist presence today in Canada and right here in the U.S.A. I have spent a career, Mr. Speaker, in Congress studying the threat posed by terrorism. Long before September 11, I came to learn the dangers of ideologically inspired terrorist organizations. As a result of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, we have made great strides in combating this enemy, but we must remember that this is a long war, and although the challenge is great, our commitment to security and human freedom will ultimately defeat the oppressive ideology that fuels our terrorist enemies. Let me just close by listing some terrorists acts which occurred and some plots which were uncovered, and then by simply asking my colleagues a question. In 1993, the first World Trade Center bombing occurred. In 1995, a plot to bomb 11 U.S. airlines was uncovered. In 1996, the Khobar Towers bombing took place. In 1998, the embassies in Tanzania and Kenya were hit. In 2000, the USS Cole. In 2001, the 9/11 attack, killing 3,000 Americans and others. In 2002, the Bali bombing. In 2003, the Marriott hotel attack in Jakarta. In 2004, the railroad bombing in Spain. In 2005, the subway bombings in London, and the bombings of the resorts in Egypt. And in 2006, 17 jihadists were arrested in Canada. The question to those who plan to vote against this resolution, and I will conclude with this: Can we really afford to belittle this threat and question the criticality of our mission in Iraq?

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. First, let me thank the gentleman for yielding. I would like to engage the distinguished chairman in a colloquy regarding funding for an important conservation project in New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, the State of New Jersey has only 3 percent of its real estate in Federal land ownership. It is also the most densely populated State in the country, as everyone knows. From national parks to wildlife areas, our investment in conservation, preservation, wildlife, and recreation pay tremendous dividends every day. The coastal areas of our Nation are under extreme pressure from development. The areas surrounding the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge is no exception. It is vital that we assist our State and local governments in true Federal/State/local partnerships to purchase tracts of land like the ones surrounding the Forsythe refuge boundary, environmentally valuable land that can be bought now but most likely will be lost permanently for public use in the very near future because of development. I appreciate the challenges that the subcommittee faced in this very difficult budget year. However, I am also hopeful that, Mr. Chairman, you will recognize the importance of this project. We have a responsibility to our children to ensure that green spaces remain, to provide clean air and water, and ample opportunities to enjoy wildlife and the great outdoors.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I was listening a few minutes ago when I heard an exchange about taxes and the President's signature being placed on the tax cut extension bill today. I just wanted to share very quickly with the Members the thought that has been placed behind this over the last number of years. If you believe, as I do, that tax policy can be useful in stimulating economic growth, then one might look for opportunities to show that that really worked. As a matter of fact it really worked. It really worked in 1962, when John Kennedy was President and he recommended that we cut taxes, and in 1962 and 1963, the Congress did cut taxes, and it worked. The economy grew. Ronald Reagan suggested that we do the same thing, because the economy was not growing very well. And we did cut taxes, and the economy grew. And in 2003, when we were having very slow economic growth, following a shallow recession in 2001, President Bush suggested that we cut taxes, and we did, and the economy has been growing great, robustly ever since. As a matter of fact, since 2003, we have had great economic growth, culminating last quarter with a 4.7 percent increase in GDP. Now, if we are going to cut taxes, then we have to cut taxes on people who pay taxes. Otherwise, by definition it will not work. This chart to my left is a chart that expresses figures that have been compiled by the IRS. And it shows, as Mr. Putnam had pointed out, that the top 1 percent of taxpayers, wage earners, pay 35 percent of the taxes, 34.2 percent to be more exact. And it shows that the top half of the taxpayers in terms of their income levels pay 96.5 percent of the taxes. Therefore, as we look at these figures, and the top 5 percent pay over 50 percent of the taxes, the top 10 percent pay 65 percent of the taxes, and as I said a minute ago, the top 50 percent of the wage earners in this country pay 96.5 percent of the taxes. So I ask you, if John Kennedy believed that cutting taxes would make the economy grow, and he was right, and Ronald Reagan thought cutting taxes would work, and turned out he was right, and President Bush thought cutting taxes would work, and it turned out the economy grew as a result of his policies, then where are we going to cut the taxes? Obviously the bottom half of the wage earners in this country paying 3.5 percent of the taxes, it will not do a lot of good to the economy if we reduce that even further. We have to cut it in the area of wage earners who pay taxes. And so it is very clear to me that today's signing of the tax cut extension bill is a well thought out, good economic policy venture, which will continue, as has been shown throughout history, to provide for a stimulus for economic growth.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Burlington Bristol Bridge as it turns 75 years old. The Burlington Bristol Bridge (1931-2006) is a vital transportation asset to the residents of South Jersey, connecting New Jersey to Pennsylvania. The bridge replaced a ferry service which carried passengers across the Delaware River to Burlington, Bristol and the amusement park on Burlington Island. Bridge construction commenced on April 28, 1930, and was completed one year later, for a total cost of approximately $1.5 million. This landmark bridge stretches 2,301 feet from abutment to abutment, and is 20 feet in width, with one lane in each direction. For many years after its construction, the bridge's lift span at 540 feet was the longest movable span ever built. It is a vertical ``Lift'' type of movable bridge, which raises regularly to allow large vessels to pass beneath. Approximately 27,000 vehicles per day, or 9.9 million vehicles annually traverse it. This man-made wonder has faithfully served the residents of South Jersey and Pennsylvania for three-quarters of a century, and will continue to do so for many more years. Its contributions to travelers and the citizens of South Jersey are hereby recognized.

Mr. SAXTON

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

Mr. SAXTON. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment of the gentlewoman from California, and I commend her for her thoughtfulness for bringing this matter to the House in the form of an amendment. This amendment will allow proper congressional oversight for the mobility system to ensure that our Nation's future force structure and capabilities will be able to meet the well-defined requirements that certainly exist, existed prior to September 11, 2001, and certainly exist to an even greater extent today. Over the past few month, there have been significant changes in the Department of the Air Force's position on the necessity of purchasing additional C-17 aircraft beyond the currently contracted 180. Senior leaders of the Department of Defense have stated requirements ranging from 187 to more than 222 C-17 aircraft in the fleet. However, the last comprehensive analysis of mobility requirements was released 5 years ago, prior to 9/11, when the global war on terror had commenced. The underlying bill, H.R. 5122, includes provisions to authorize funding for an additional three C-17 aircraft, allow for the retirement of the 1960s vintage C-5A fleet, that has rarely lived up to its operational expectations, and set a minimum floor of 299 for strategic airlift aircraft, which is a necessity and a necessary first step in meeting our Nation's growing airlift requirements. This amendment, directing the mobility requirements study, will enhance our ability to identify the correct future actions needed to support our Nation's airlift missions capability. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I fully support this amendment, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same. I would yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).