Jim Saxton

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, the recreational fishing community is mourning the loss of a dear friend, Randy Fry of Auburn, California, who died while free diving for abalone off the Mendocino coast as a result of an attack by a great white shark on August 15th. He had often said that if he had to go, he wanted to go in the water. While the international media has focused on the awful details of this tragedy, his friends and fellow members of the Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) choose to remember him for his tireless dedication to the interests of West Coast fisheries and recreational anglers and divers everywhere. At the time of his death, he was working full-time as the West Coast Regional Director of the RFA. Randy Fry grew up in the Fresno area and his dad, now deceased, was an insurance salesman. His mother, Velora, lives in Auburn. He leaves a brother and two sisters, an ex-wife, a grown son and Natalie, his girlfriend he wanted to marry. He became involved in fisheries management issues when he became concerned about the diminished stocks of rockfish (sebastes) and other nearshore groundfish that are so important to recreational fishermen in California. Randy took the bull by the horns and started getting people organized to fight recreational fishing closures. He seemed to know everybody, and if he didn't know them personally, he was buddies with someone who did. He was a former SCUBA diving instructor who led diving charters in the Philippines, and he became an avid free-diving spearfisherman who competed in club competitions. He was active in the NorCal Skindivers Club and the Central California Association of Dive Clubs (CENCAL). He had the perfect personality for this work: he liked people, he was passionate about the ocean and he loved to talk fish politics. He was also always willing to make the sacrifices necessary to get the job done. He was truly one of a kind. In 2003, Fry was appointed to a fishery management panel on groundfish, which included important species to the recreational nearshore fishery. Randy was also instrumental in building support for the appointment of Darrell Ticehurst, a private recreational angler, to the Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC)--one of the eight regional fishery management councils. He was a champion for reasonable public access to public resources and fair and equitable regulation of recreational fishermen. Randy went to bat for sportfishermen at scores of meetings of government agencies. Some of the issues Randy worked on include: Building support for the ``Freedom to Fish Act'' to prevent the implementation of arbitrary no-fishing zones. He bird-dogged the California Department of Fish & Game over the use of license fees and fishing tackle excise tax revenue, making sure it was used in the best interests of fishermen. He worked to introduce a bill to make commercial-scale abalone poaching a felony in California. Randy sheltered low-impact fishing opportunities, like bank angling and spearfishing, from seasonal closures designed to protect shelf rockfish species. He worked to make ``reasonable and satisfying'' recreational fishing seasons a priority in California management decisions. Worked toward improving recreational catch data systems, to replace the failures of the past. Worked to keep the National Marine Sanctuaries out of fishing regulations. On a personal level, Randy was a fun guy to be around. He was a storyteller and a jokester. He loved to fish for salmon, dive with a spear gun or go bird hunting. He was a realist, and one of his favorite phrases when he had to deliver bad news about next year's fishing regulations was, ``I'm just tellin' ya how the cow eats the cabbage.'' He was an excellent public speaker who wasn't afraid to criticize the California Fish & Game Commission when necessary, but he always tried to turn his opponents into friends. He didn't have a mean bone in his body. Randy was one of those all-American strivers who attended seminars on salesmanship and negotiating skills back when he was a real estate broker and contractor. He was an avid reader and was constantly honing his skills to be a more effective and knowledgeable representative. He brought many disparate fishing groups together in consultation on important decisions, yet he was able to take charge when necessary and show leadership in times of crisis. A few days before the ``Fish Fry for the RFA at Noyo Harbor,'' Randy's friend Jim Martin left a message on Randy's phone saying that he needed a pep talk because of some setbacks he had. A few minutes later he called back and said: ``Oh, Cowboy Up, Pardner.'' Jim busted out laughing. It was perfect Randy: short, sweet and to the point. It was all the pep talk he needed. Four words, and Randy set him straight. Randy Fry was a warrior, a champion for the ocean and fishermen everywhere. He is sorely missed by his family, friends and colleagues.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4200) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2005 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 12 of rule XX, I move that the meetings of the conference between the House and the Senate on H.R. 4200, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2005 for military activities of the Department of Defense for military construction and for defense activities of the Department of Energy to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the armed forces, and for other purposes, be closed to the public at such times as classified national security information may be broached, provided that any sitting Member of the Congress shall be entitled to attend any meeting of the conference.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Veterans' Employment Act of 2004. Our veterans too often see limitations in the availability of civilian employment opportunities. While federal service positions offer preference to veterans, this provision is not universal in private industry. For many seeking a position in the private sector, the search for employment proves long and arduous. During their time in the service, our veterans acquire several personal attributes that private employers find imperative in today's business world. While serving in the armed services, these men and women consistently demonstrate a high level of adaptability; the ability to work within a team; a strong work ethic; and, more often than not, exemplary leadership qualities. Alongside the extensive technical and strategic training sustained during their service, the character displayed by our veterans should be sufficient to secure them steady employment. Unfortunately, we have too often been shown that this is not the case. During my tenure in Congress, many of my constituents have expressed to me their frustration with the availability of steady, well paid employment opportunities. Unlike their non-veteran contemporaries, they often find employers unfamiliar with the extensive training and exemplary personal attributes accumulated during their years of service. With their skill sets and experience, our veterans most certainly deserve broader employment opportunities. In response to this need for increased employment opportunities, I am honored to introduce the Veterans' Employment Act of 2004. It is my strong belief that our veterans provide some of the most valuable service both within and outside of our armed services. With support of this bill, we may further expand the employment opportunities available to our veterans and ensure the strength and reputation of America's private industries.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Reservists' Employment Act of 2004. Due to the limited time commitment typical of an inactive reserve member, most of these men and women sustain full- time careers outside of their military service. Although many of them serve their country in federal service positions, most of our reservists are employed by private industry. While most employers should be familiar with the responsibilities of our reservists, the War on Terror has greatly altered the nature of activation, and, in most cases, increased the frequency of deployment. Since the War on Terror began, the fundamental organization of our reserves has changed dramatically and will continue to do so as the war progresses. With increasing unpredictability in deployment, the stability of a reservist's participation in their civilian jobs has too been altered. As many employers rely heavily on their reservist employees, their temporary absence often proves detrimental to these businesses. Although current law prohibits employers from terminating these reservists during activation, this provision does not correct the potential uncertainties employers may harvest regarding the capabilities of a reservist employee. During their tenure in the armed forces, our reservists acquire several personal attributes that private employers find imperative in today's business world. While serving in the armed services, these men and women consistently demonstrate a high level of adaptability; the ability to work within a team; a strong work ethic; and, more often than not, exemplary leadership qualities. Alongside these attributes, these men and women further illustrate their dedication and hard work by sustaining both reservist and civilian employment simultaneously. Given their exemplary character and training, we cannot give private industry any justification for not hiring these men and women. As some of the most well trained and productive members of our workforce, our reservists' credentials should promote their employment, not inhibit it. In response to the need to preserve private industry opportunities for our reservists, and, to further support their employers, I am honored to introduce the Reservists' Employment Act of 2004. It is my strong belief that our reservists provide some of the most valuable service both within and outside of our armed services. Now more than ever, we must show our support for their dedication, and, in turn, those private industries that support our troops.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Pinelands Cultural Society as it celebrates its 30th year of incorporation with a special celebration concert at Albert Music Hall on November 20, 2004. The Pinelands Cultural and Historical Preservation Society is a grass roots, non-profit, all-volunteer organization that has been operating in southern New Jersey for the past three decades to preserve the cultural heritage of the New Jersey Pinelands region. The Society's goals include preservation and stimulation of interest in South Jersey's musical and cultural heritage. Running a live show 50 Saturday nights each year, plus special occasion Sunday shows, the proceeds, along with individual donations of time, talents and money have culminated in the creation of the present 350-seat concert hall building called ``Albert Music Hall'' which serves as a ``living history'' venue for the presentation of live acoustic music concerts in the decades-old tradition of people indigenous to the Pinelands area. It also serves as a repository for extensive historic archives including audiotape and videotape recordings, documentation and photographs reflecting life in the New Jersey Pines from the early 1900s. Albert Music Hall has been inducted into the American Folklore Center, Local Legacies Collection Archive at the Library of Congress, and is also registered in the Library of Congress' Moving Image Collections Archive Database. Thus, I am pleased to recognize the efforts of an expert staff of volunteers for their efforts in bringing New Jersey's history to life. I congratulate them, and wish them many more decades of success.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to LTC (Ret.) K. Paul LeGrice as he prepares to retire as the Director of Force Projection, United States Army, Fort Dix, New Jersey, effective September 30, 2004. A true patriot, Paul tirelessly supported this nation's military through both his service in the military and as a key Department of the Army Civilian. He enlisted in the United States Army in 1962 and later received his commission in 1965. In February 1993, after serving 30 years in enlisted and officer status, Paul retired as a Lieutenant Colonel and began his service as the Director of Force Projection Directorate, Fort Dix, New Jersey. In his role as Director, he constantly demonstrated his unparalleled ability to accomplish complex tasks in an outstanding fashion through his untiring diligence, uncanny foresight and exceptionally noteworthy leadership. His response to the events of September 11, 2001, demonstrated his true mettle. Paul provided the even-tempered, professional leadership required as Fort Dix successfully mobilized over 30,000 soldiers for both OCONUS combat missions and CONUS support missions in support of Operations Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom and Noble Eagle. As Ft. Dix continued its role as a major power projection platform, Paul took very personally his responsibility to ensure proper support of the mobilizing and demobilizing soldiers. Additionally, he constantly sought ways to improve and expand upon the Joint Installation Partnership between Ft. Dix, McGuire Air Force Base, and Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst to better serve our nation's military personnel. These joint installation projects all proved advantageous to the three bases and their personnel by efficiently consolidating activities while saving valuable tax dollars. Thus, I am pleased to recognize the efforts and accomplishments of this outstanding American patriot. I congratulate and thank LTC (Ret.) K. Paul LeGrice for his 42 years of selfless service to this nation and wish him a happy retirement.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and would like to thank my friend from California for introducing it. Just over a week ago, the civilized world agonized over the massacre of more than 300 Russian school children who were returning to school after summer vacation when Islamic terrorists took them hostage and ultimately, took their lives. This cowardly and inhumane act occurred just days after two other vile acts of terror--the bombing of two Russian airliners, which killed 89 innocent men, women, and children, and the Moscow subway bombing that killed nine. Mr. Speaker, there is no denying that the situation in Chechnya is a complicated one. Despite the mutually destructive history of Russian- Chechen relations, the acts of terror that have been unleashed upon the Russian people are inexcusable, inhumane, and are representative of the evil that we face today in the War on Terror. The fact that those who carried out these brutal acts purposely picked children as their primary targets further illuminates their utter disregard for the rules of law and the norms of human conduct. Today, as we express our solidarity with the Russian people, let us take time to remember the fact that the War on Terror is a transnational conflict that requires strong alliances among nations both large and small. The people of Russia have a friend in the United States of America. It is my strong belief, that the murderers who took the lives of children in Beslan share ties with others who seek to wreak havoc within our own borders. Let those who wish us ill know that the United States, Russia and our allies will stop at nothing to destroy the global network of Islamic fundamentalism and all other forms of terrorism. As the United States House of Representatives expresses its solidarity with the Russian people, I would like to remind my colleagues of the other victims of terrorism that the world has lost in recent years. People have mourned the losses of loved ones in Bali, Jerusalem, Madrid, Jakarta, New York, Washington, Baghdad, Kabul and various other places. May their memories and those of the children of Beslan, the passengers on the two aircraft and the people on the subway be the rallying cry for our ongoing struggle against terrorism.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Pinelands Cultural Society as it celebrates its 30th year of incorporation with a special celebration concert at Albert Music Hall on November 20, 2004. The Pinelands Cultural and Historical Preservation Society is a grass roots, non-profit, all-volunteer organization that has been operating in southern New Jersey for the past three decades to preserve the cultural heritage of the New Jersey Pinelands region. The Society's goals include preservation and stimulation of interest in South Jersey's musical and cultural heritage. Running a live show 50 Saturday nights each year, plus special occasion Sunday shows, the proceeds, along with individual donations of time, talents and money have culminated in the creation of the present 35-seat concert hall building called ``Albert Music Hall'' which serves as a ``living history'' venue for the presentation of live acoustic music concerts in the decades-old tradition of people indigenous to the Pinelands area. It also serves as a repository for extensive historic archives including audiotape and videotape recordings, documentation and photographs reflecting life in the New Jersey Pines from the early 1900s. Albert Music Hall has been inducted into the American Folklore Center, Local Legacies Collection Archive at the Library of Congress, and is also registered in the Library of Congress' Moving Image Collections Archive Database. Thus, I am pleased to recognize the efforts of an expert staff of volunteers for their efforts in bringing New Jersey's history to life. I congratulate them, and wish them many more decades of success.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very reluctant support of this rule and with great concern about the provision that would permit an objection to be offered to the military housing provisions in the bill. Mr. Speaker, much has been said about this provision already, and I would just add this, that many of us, all Members of Congress, work to support the men and women who sign up on a volunteer basis to be members of the armed services. When they sign up, we spend millions and billions of dollars on training, recruitment, trying to make sure that the all-volunteer force remains a professional force, and that depends on retention. If we do not have the men and women who volunteer to join the service and who we spend billions of dollars to train, if they do not decide to stay in the military forces, then our all-volunteer force cannot work. The quality-of-life issues become extremely important, and one of the most important quality of life issues is housing. Currently, we are behind in providing housing for our military families. If we increased our military construction budget by $1 billion a year for 20 years, we would catch up. Obviously, we cannot afford to increase our military construction budget by $1 billion a year for 20 years to do that catchup. However, if DOD invests $500 million and leverages the balance of what we need to provide housing through this military construction program, we will be able to solve this problem in a relatively short period of time. The program is working. It has proven to be successful, and to remove the legislative cap in fiscal year 2005 is extremely important. We on the authorization committee have provided a provision to increase it in 2006, but to skip a year, which puts us that much further behind. And, therefore, I would urge the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, who has indicated that he is going to raise this objection, not to do so.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I missed rollcall votes Nos. 400 through 403. The reason being that I had a prescheduled meeting with the Secretary of Defense at the same time the votes were taking place. However, had I been present, I would have voted in the following fashion: Vote No. 400, ``yea''; Vote No. 401, ``yea''; Vote No. 402, ``yea''; and Vote No. 403, ``yea.''

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, July 13, I missed rollcall votes No. 363 through No. 370. The reason being that my district was hit with nearly a foot of rain and as a result of this 1000-year flood, my presence was needed in New Jersey to ensure cooperation with and assistance from FEMA during this disaster. However, had I been present, I would have voted in the following fashion: vote No. 363, ``aye''; vote No. 364 ``aye''; vote No. 365 ``aye''; vote No. 366 ``no''; vote No. 367 ``no''; vote No. 368 ``aye''; vote No. 369 ``no''; vote No. 370 ``aye.''

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from Indiana for not only introducing this important piece of legislation but for taking the lead in this Congress on this important issue. Mr. Speaker, as someone who has visited Israel on several occasions and viewed the security fence, it is abundantly clear that it was built out of necessity. On my last trip, I was reminded once again, that the drive from the beautiful beachfront in Tel Aviv, to the Palestinian town of Qualqilya in the West Bank took less then 25 minutes. That same 25 minutes is all the time it would take for a suicide bomber to find his or her way to a bus stop, a shopping mall, or a discotechque. Earlier today I had the honor of hosting 20 victims of Palestinian terrorism. As I met with them I was reminded of a simple but gruesome fact: everyday for nearly 60 years Israelis have awoken in the morning to a constant threat of terrorism. Terrorism is what built the security fence. The Government of Israel has said on numerous occasions that if after more then 10 years of empty promises and bold face lies by Yassir Arafat and his cronies, if the Palestinian leadership would finally crack down on terrorism and work to reform the Palestinian territories, then perhaps one day the fence would no longer be necessary. Mr. Speaker, echoing my friend from Indiana I would like to commend President Bush and Secretary of State Powell for taking the lead in marshalling opposition to the use of the International Court of Justice as a forum to solve the ongoing Israeli/Palestinian conflict. The decision by the ICJ will do nothing politically or legally to help destroy Palestinian terrorism or reform the Palestinian Authority. Mr. Speaker, I would like to once again commend my friend from Indiana for introducing this bold resolution and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 2828, the Clerk be authorized to make technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to reflect the action of the House just taken.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, each month the Joint Economic Committee has the opportunity to receive job growth data from the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics. This month, the JEC was pleased to receive good news; fortunately, good news of two kinds: First, many good paying jobs are being created in large numbers in the U.S. economy; and, second, job growth continues at a rapid rate. The June payroll employment increases pushed the total employment gains since August to 1.5 million jobs. According to the new data released a week ago by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, job growth continues today as the payroll employment increased by 112,000 jobs in June. During the past few days, however, some have contended that most of the recent employment gains are in low wage jobs. Quite the contrary is true. Occupations that are relatively well paid accounted for over 70 percent of the net increases in employment between June of 2003 and June of 2004. Although this does not mean that all of the jobs that were created in these categories were high-paying, most of them were. The jobs in these occupational categories are generally highly paid. It does indicate that most of the recent employment gains have not been disproportionately in low-wage occupations, as some in this House have claimed. Specifically, according to the statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Household Survey, between June 2003 and June 2004, 71.4 percent of the net increase in employment was in three relatively well- paid occupational categories: Management, professional and related occupations, that category comprised 23.1 percent of the job gains; construction and extraction occupations, that is, mining occupations, accounted for 36.1 percent; and installation, maintenance and repair occupations accounted for 12.2 percent. The earnings in these occupational categories are higher than the median and much higher than the earnings of the typical low-income worker. Most of the workers in well-paid occupations have earnings in the middle range or higher. These employment figures indicate that most of the new jobs are not at low wage levels, but at higher levels of earnings. We have been hearing assertions about ``hamburger flippers,'' jobs dominating employment for about 20 years now. Those stories have not come true. It just is not happening. We are not about to become a Nation of hamburger flippers. The data shows that most of the recent employment gains have been in relatively well paid occupations. This is good news for the American worker and is good news for the American family. It means that the low- paying job problem that accompanied the economic downturn which began in the last half of 2000, during the Clinton administration, has been rectified. It further means that the economic policies of the current administration are working to bring pocketbook issues into a positive state.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, while I believe misguided, is nonetheless a very important amendment because it changes the parameters, or at least it seeks to change the parameters, of the definition of enemy combatant. It seeks to force in this case the United States to treat enemy combatants as criminals rather than as enemy combatants, and it fails to recognize, therefore, one very significant change that has taken place, something that is very different about this war that then existed in any war in modern history, and that is that there is no doubt that the attacks of September 11 constituted acts of war, and, therefore, by definition the United States territory, the 50 States and our territories, are part of the battlefield. The gentleman from California's (Mr. Sherman) amendment does not seek to curb the definition of enemy combatant as it applies to Guantanamo or as it applies to Iran or Afghanistan, just the United States. So the gentleman makes a difference between the part of the battlefield that is offshore and the part of the battlefield that is onshore in this case. And I think that goes to create a mistake, because it places 30- day limits on the detention of an enemy combatant by the Department of Justice. What that means is that if the FBI apprehends an enemy combatant in the process of trying to carry out an act of terrorism in the United States, and he is charged by the Department of Justice and imprisoned, he can only be held for 30 days, and that seems to me to go in the wrong direction. It means that if Mohammad Atta were picked up and identified as an enemy combatant, that he would have to be released in 30 days. The Sherman amendment kind of reminds me of when I chaired the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans for 6 years, and it sounds like what the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) really wants to do is he wants the war on terror to be run like a catch-and-release fish tournament, and that obviously is something that we do not want to see done here. So I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose this well-intended amendment, but which takes us in exactly the opposite direction we should be going.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Moorestown Ecumenical Neighborhood Development, Inc. (MEND), a nonprofit MR. organization celebrating its 35th anniversary of service to the low and moderate-income citizens who have been and still are in need of affordable housing in Burlington County, New Jersey. The Federal Government has worked hand-in-hand with this organization, a significant contributor to the vitality, diversity and growth of southern New Jersey, helping it meet the region's affordable housing needs, On October 15, 2004, MEND will celebrate its 35th Anniversary with a Gala Dinner Dance. This private, non-profit, faith-based corporation was founded in 1969 by 9 Moorestown churches to provide affordable rental and for-sale housing to low and moderate income individuals, families, senior citizens and the disabled. The concerned people of MEND who strive to help their Burlington County neighbors are deserving of recognition for their selfless concern for those in need, and for their efforts to improve the lives of the residents of Burlington County.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this resolution, a fitting tribute to a personal hero of mine, the fortieth President of these great United States, President Ronald Wilson Reagan. Mr. Speaker, President Reagan was and is today the personification of all that is good in America. All that knew him have commented on the eternal optimism he exuded, much like the hope America presents to the rest of the world. He was a beacon of light for freedom and for freedom loving people everywhere. The fact is that today there are not hundreds, not thousands, but millions of people in the world who live in freedom, and these people are free because of the leadership of President Ronald Reagan. He had a vision that set this nation down a path of greatness that historians shall look back on as a vital turning point for not only this country, but indeed the world as well. There is an old military axiom that there are no bad battalions only bad leaders. As a corollary, I propose that there are no great nations, only great leaders. President Reagan was indeed one of this country's greatest leaders. During the eight years he was President, he turned this country around militarily, economically and diplomatically. And as a result, he stands with many of the great leaders of our country's past--like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and Dwight D. Eisenhower. What he left most importantly was a legacy of optimism and a restored faith in the American presidency. In 1984, the year I was elected to Congress, President Reagan said while speaking to students at Fudan University in Shanghai, China, ``We're an optimistic people. Like you, we inherited a vast land of endless skies, tall mountains, rich fields, and open prairies. It made us see the possibilities in everything. It made us hopeful.'' He made us hopeful even in the face of adversity. Who can forget that cold, grim day the hours after the Challenger disaster, when our nation was stunned and weeping? He comforted us with a poem: ``We will never forget them, nor the last time we saw them this morning, as they prepared for their journey, and waved goodbye, and slipped the surly bonds of earth to touch the face of God.'' And today, we as American people, are comforted for it is most certain that as he heads on his final journey, we wave goodbye to our fortieth President and he ``slips the surly bonds of earth to touch the face of God.'' Well done, Mr. President. I will miss you and America will miss you, but we will never forget you.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. My friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), has made the point that Congress is not investigating. That is simply not true. Both the Senate and the House, particularly, have held particularly contentious hearings, and the country has seen those hearings because they have been public. But in addition to that, on a frequent basis we have held closed hearings because much of this information is classified. And we ask tough questions in those hearings, Republicans and Democrats together. But in addition to that, General Antonio Taguba just days after it was discovered, after these events had taken place, was tasked to do an investigation. That was in January. And through January and February and March and April that investigation went forward resulting in something that has become known as the Taguba Report, a report every bit this high with a 58-page summary. That report and six other military investigations which are still under way have led to a conclusion that this situation is being well taken care of. The conclusion is that there are a few people who committed some horrific acts and that the problem was the result of the collapse of leadership in one battalion, possibly two, and that some misdirected people got out of control. While this is going on, there is much good going on in the Middle East, in Iraq. Our troops are fighting to secure the peace in support of the CPA. They are fighting to secure important sites, important to economic growth and the welfare of the Iraqi people. They are fighting to build an Iraqi security service, border police, site police, security police and a police force. They are fighting to secure hospitals and schools. They are fighting to promote local caucuses, to elect local individuals, and they are fighting to control foreign fighters, insurgents if you will. So there is a big job to do in the Middle East, and I was taken yesterday as I read in the press of another investigation that is ongoing by the 9/11 Commission when they interviewed Rudy Giuliani. Let me conclude with this. This is not an exact quote, but this is the meaning of what Rudy Giuliani said yesterday. He said words to this effect: There is only one enemy in the war on terrorism and it is not us. It is those who attacked us and murdered our loved ones.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. Our country is at war, Mr. Speaker, and this rule and the underlying bill reflect the needs of a country at war. We have addressed in this bill in particular the needs of the soldier. In fact, the bill is entitled The Year of the Soldier, and to support our soldiers we have addressed issues that have to do with technology. We have addressed issues that have to do with armor, both body and vehicle. We have addressed additional needs that our Special Operations Command has, and we have addressed the need to defend ourselves in terms of chemical and biological protection. But one of the most important provisions of the bill, Mr. Speaker, is a provision that addresses a need in terms of our military's transformation. Our committee found during a hearing on April 21, 2004, that the DOD acquisition process would not respond in an expeditious manner to the urgent force protection equipment needs of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is something that the bill seeks to change. At the hearing, the HASC found that it required 6 months from the time a combatant commander made his request to the time that the production for such equipment commenced, 6 months from the time the combatant commander said he needed a device and the time we began to produce it; not when it got to the field, but when we began to produce it. This provision would authorize the Secretary of Defense to publish a streamlined acquisition process for use when combatant fatalities have occurred. The combatant commander has an urgent need for equipment and the delay would cause the continuation of combat fatalities. This rapid acquisition authority will allow a rapid response to emergency combat situations. This rapid acquisition authority would allow a rapid response to emergency combat situations, would allow a rapid response to changes in our opponents' battlefield tactics and, most important, this provision would help minimize combat fatalities. This is a process to be used as a quick-start bridge to the normal acquisition process. The provision is limited, however, limited to $100 million per fiscal year.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, the last speaker from the minority I think misrepresented the situation. This process started in January. We have been through the subcommittee process. The gentleman went through the subcommittee process, had ample time to make his arguments, went through the full committee process. We forged a document through that process where everybody had ample time, including a debate that started at 10 o'clock in the morning last week and ended at midnight, to make our points; and following that debate, this bill was reported by a unanimous vote. So those who are crying foul today because of this rule are the same people who have worked since January to make their points, 12 hours last week to make their points, and a 9-hour debate today. It seems pretty fair to me.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking and congratulating the chairman and the ranking member for the great leadership that they have each shown in bringing us through this process beginning in January, working through February, March and April; and here we are on May 20 taking another step forward in this process of making sure that we provide the resources that are needed by our troops in this, The Year of the Troops, which is what this bill is named after. I rise in strong support of the bill, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. Last week the Committee on Armed Services approved this bill unanimously, continuing the committee's tradition of bipartisanship in addressing the defense needs for our Nation. The bill contains several initiatives that will aid the armed services and the Federal Government as a whole in the ongoing war against terrorism and contains several promising provisions that will help to transform the military services. At the request of the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), we adopted the theme The Year of the Soldier and emphasized initiatives that would directly assist our deployed forces. We are aware of the challenges they face in Iraq and Afghanistan and want to do everything we can to make conditions safer for them and to make it possible for them to be ever so effective. An important element in the committee's Year of the Soldier theme is force protection, and that is a concern that influenced all we did this year. We have taken a number of actions in this bill to provide the resources and direction to better equip our men and women who are serving selflessly in dangerous conditions overseas. In this bill, we provide for our valiant warriors in the Special Operations Command. We have authorized funds, for example, for several items in the SOCOM commander's unfunded requirements priority list and have authorized additional funding that would provide some necessary operational flexibility for special operations forces on the ground. We continue to believe that the best way to fight terrorism is to keep terrorists far from our shores. I continue to believe that the Special Operations Command is one of our most effective weapons in this mission. This bill bolsters the command's capabilities in several ways. Next, the bill provides increased funding to accelerate the development and fielding of advanced technologies for emerging critical operations needs, including projection of our forces against improvised explosive devices and rocket and mortar attack and to provide real-time surveillance of suspected enemy activities. I could add here, Mr. Chairman, there is a very strong provision which we added late in the game because at a hearing on April 21 it became apparent that it took just too long to field new kinds of technologies. We have provided a special program to provide capabilities for the chief of staff of the Army and his staff to provide in a more quick fashion the capabilities that are needed by our soldiers. In addition, this bill provides increased funding for combating terrorism in terms of technological support to accelerate the development and fielding of advanced technologies for the fight against terrorism. Finally, we continue to expand our successful initiative of last year to develop chemical and biological defense countermeasures. Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I did not say a word about something that we are doing for those who have fought in previous wars. We have found the resources this year to add $7 billion over a 10-year period to bolster and bring up to date the survivors benefit program that retired individuals and their spouses are able to avail themselves of. We move the percentage of survivors benefits, that is, generally widows, from a 35 percent level to a 55 percent level. This SBP program is an extremely important program because what happened was that in the past, when a member who served in the military passed away, his surviving spouse, usually, of course, his widow, would receive 55 percent of his retired pay up until she turned 62 and then that percentage would drop to 35 percent. We have fixed that in providing $7 billion over 10 years to bring that 35 percent back up over a 4-year period to the 55 percent level. This is important. It is a way of saying thank you to those who have served our country and is a very important part of our bill. In closing, I just want to express my appreciation to the members of the Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, who contributed so mightily to this bill, and particularly thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), the ranking member, with whom I have worked closely over the years. This is an excellent bill. I congratulate the chairman for bringing it here. I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on this bill.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment being offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode). Mr. Chairman, during the 1980s, and during the 1990s, there were many of us who warned that some day terrorism would be an issue that we would have to deal with in this country. Today, reports indicate that terrorist groups are functioning in parts of South America, as well as Mexico, in an effort to cross through the U.S.-Mexican border. It is clear that all possible steps must be taken in order to prevent this. I would point out that both in Colombia and in the tri-border area, which is an area where the borders of Argentina, Paraguay and Brazil meet, there are large numbers of people who offer the potential to become a serious problem in our country. If anyone doubts that, there are two books that have recently been published by the Rand Corporation: ``Arms Trafficking and Colombia,'' and ``Colombian Labyrinth: The Synergy of Drugs and Insurgency and Its Implications for Regional Stability.'' These are serious issues. This amendment will accomplish the desired goal by providing the Department of Defense and our Commander in Chief the option of using military force to secure the border if it becomes necessary. This amendment does not require the use of troops on the border, and will, most importantly, not affect force-readiness or overburden our military. Instead, it will enable the Secretary of Defense to respond to a request by the Secretary of Homeland Security to allow the use of military personnel to defend against this national security threat. Just as many people did not want to hear it in the 1980s and people did not want to hear it in the 1990s, and then 2001 occurred, this is a new area of concern which must be dealt with. The Secretary will also have the ability to authorize assistance for the U.S. Customs Service to prevent entry of weapons of mass destruction, drugs and other terrorist items. Finally, this amendment is a commonsense approach which will give the highest levels of our government an important tool necessary to combat threats against our national security here at home. I commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode) for bringing it forward, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I take some exception to the polite assertion of the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) that the Congress of the United States perhaps in his view has not done enough or is not on a track to do enough; but at some point we have to decide to come to a conclusion that a few people committed some very horrendous, bad acts. The events that have occurred since then, and I would remind Members this occurred in late December or January, or became evident in January, and immediate actions were taken by our trusted military leaders, and I am not talking about our civilian leaders necessarily, I am talking about our military leaders, people who swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States while carrying out their military duties. Since then, General Taguba and his staff have carried out a very extensive investigation. I saw a copy of the report. It was that high with a 50-page executive summary. While it is classified, somehow or another it happened to appear on the Internet so anyone that wants to know what is in it can click on the Internet and look at it, and you will have to fairly conclude that there was nothing in that report that would suggest that we need a broader investigation. But in spite of that, there are currently seven ongoing investigations being carried out by our military leadership, trying to find out if there is anything else that ought to be looked at, any other criminal investigations that ought to be entered into, any other processes to clean this mess up. Now, we have 140,000 people doing good work, protecting the national security of our country while trying to put that country back together, positive work supporting the Provisional Coalition Authority, positive work working with Iraqi families, positive work monitoring caucuses where Iraqis are electing their own local leaders, controlling traffic, positive work securing ammo dumps that are sometimes miles square. Our Special Forces are there operating, 140,000 people doing good works; and we are asked by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) to concentrate on the bad acts, throw Congress into an oversight overdrive, concentrating on the bad acts of a handful of people. I do not buy into the notion that we should do this, and I think the chairman's amendment is exactly what we need to do. I would hope the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) would rethink his position.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to introduce an important piece of conservation legislation, the Weather and Oceans Resources Realignment Act. This bill will transfer the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to the Department of the Interior. An issue to which I have devoted a great deal of time and one that I feel is very important is the protection of the diverse range of fish stocks that inhabit our world's oceans, many of which are very close to disappearing forever. The National Marine Fisheries Service, the agency tasked with the protection of these species has failed to do so. I have never been able to comprehend why the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is housed within the Department of Commerce, which has nothing to do with the protection of our natural resources. For this reason, I have introduced this legislation, which simply moves NOAA to a more appropriate agency, Interior. Given the release of now three studies essentially stating that what I have been talking about is likely to happen, I am more convinced than ever that we need to take aggressive action immediately. Many of our oceans' fish stocks are now reportedly 90 percent depleted, meaning only 10 percent of the stocks that once existed remain. And many of these stocks are in grave danger of extinction if we proceed down the same path we are on now--that is, continue to study these stocks and do little to mitigate the damage that has already been done. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, created from my Oceans Act of 2000, released it's report in April of this year, with many of the same findings. We need to take immediate aggressive steps to prevent the disappearance of these fish species, before it's too late. These studies should be a wake-up call that the process through which our world's fisheries is managed is broken and needs to be fixed. The National Marine Fisheries Service has demonstrated repeatedly they are incapable of doing the job they have been tasked with as the primary federal agency responsible for monitoring and protecting our Nation's fisheries. To place them within the Department of the Interior would serve to strengthen the two agencies goals of resources conservation. This is an issue that resonates with anyone who has ever been to the beach in States like New Jersey, or watched a television program involving the deep blue sea. And given that 50 percent of the population of the United States lives within 100 miles of a coast, there are many who are personally affected by this issue. We have a unique opportunity to do something amazing and I think we owe it these wonderful resources that are our oceans to do all we can to bring them back to a healthy and sustainable level, for future generations.