Neil Abercrombie

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) for their replies in this colloquy and thank the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) for pointing this out. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that Members would note we are approaching the membership for consideration under something that should actually be taken up, in my judgment, in the Department of Defense and should be included in that budget. Nonetheless, we are here today under the present rules asking merely for the compensation that is due us under the treaty obligation of the United States. It is not fair to ask a State of the Union to undertake expenditures that are engendered as a result of the actions of the United States of America, nor is it fair to ask any of the territories or the Commonwealth of Marianas to assume the same costs. This is particularly true when the three entities are suffering from the decline in tourism dollars and revenue that has come in. The fact that we have borne this burden for this time should not give rise to any consideration or thought that this has been something that is equitable. So I would hope that the membership would understand, as we conclude our deliberations on the bill, that this is an amount of money that is but a minuscule portion of that which is due Guam, American Samoa, the Marianas and the State of Hawaii.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained yesterday and consequently I was not able to cast my vote on 4 rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: Rollcall No. 249, H.R. 3937--to revoke a public land order with respect to certain lands erroneously included in the Cibola National Wildlife Refuge in California, ``yes''. Rollcall No. 250, H.R. 3786--To revise the boundary of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area in the States of Utah and Arizona, ``yes''. Rollcall No. 251, H.R. 3971--To provide for an independent investigation of Forest Service firefighter deaths that are caused by wildfire entrapment, or burnover, ``yes''. Rollcall No. 252, H.J. Res. 95--To designate an official flag of the Medal of Honor and providing for presentation of that flag to each recipient of that Medal of Honor ``yes''.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, on reflection, I would like to withdraw my request. And the inquiry is, can I withdraw my request with an observation as to why I would like to withdraw it?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my request in the hopes that we can take a little consideration when we are discussing with each other our judgment, not just as to political philosophy, but as to the motivations and reasons that we consider the implications of what we say when we draw rather, to my mind, offensive analogies as to the consequences of what another Member's actions might be.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker I demand that the gentleman's words be taken down.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1906. The Pu'uhonua o Honaunau National Historical Park was authorized by Congress nearly 50 years ago to preserve a truly unique relic of Hawaiian history and culture. Up until the early 19th century, Hawaiians who broke the ancient code of law could avoid an otherwise certain death by fleeting to this place of refuge, or pu'uhonua, for absolution and clemency. Defeated warriors and non-combatants could also seek refuge here during times of battle. It is this function that gave this park its name, City of Refuge, which was later changed to Pu'uhonua o Honaunau. In addition to the refuge, which is enclosed by a great wall, the surrounding land also housed several generations of powerful Hawaiian chiefs, adding to the area's great historical value. The pu'uhonua and royal grounds are still considered sacred by native Hawaiians and the sites draw a half million visitors each year who come in search of the vast cultural, spiritual, educational, and recreational opportunities the park has to offer. Visitors can attend cultural demonstrations of traditional Hawaiian arts and crafts, hike along the historic 1871 Trail to several archaeological sites, observe wildlife such as the endangered green sea turtles in Keone Ele cove, or snorkel in the clear waters of Honaunau Bay. When the National Historic Park was established in 1955, nearly two- thirds of the ancient village of Ki'ilae remained undiscovered and outside of the park in a single private ownership. Recently, the approximately 238-acre Honaunau tract, which contains the balance of the Ki'ilae Village site and a human habitation record stretching back nearly a thousand years, became available for acquisition. This property is extremely rich in pre-history, and provides important clues about ancient Hawaiian life. Agricultural structures, stone piles, and walls are interspersed among recreational sites and the burial sites of the villagers. Acquisition of this area is crucial to protect extraordinary early Hawaiian cultural sites and expand the public understanding and interpretation of cultural traditions and Hawaiian subsistence patterns. This public acquisition will safeguard this important glimpse into early Hawaiian village life and social dynamics. It is important to note that the acquisition and expansion of Pu'uhonua o Honaunau is overwhelmingly supported by the National Park Service, the County of Hawaii, and the local community. In addition, an identical version of H.R. 1906 has already passed the Senate in the form of S. 1057. All that remains is the passage of H.R. 1906 in the House of Representatives. I urge my colleagues to protect these ancient Hawaiian cultural sites and support this legislation.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleague, Mr. Blumenauer and the others, in condemning the executive order issued late last week which will allow our air traffic control system to be commercialized and privatized. We in Congress passed legislation strengthening our public transportation systems to help insure greater safety and the prevention of terrorism. We have recently federalized airport security and baggage inspection. Are we, at the same time, turning over absolutely essential air traffic control to the private sector, which utterly failed in airport security? How is this going to increase public confidence in air travel ? It is outrageous to propose actually privatizing a government service as essential as assuring the safe and orderly operation of the thousands of airline flights daily. When the private sector cannot perform an important and vital service adequately, it becomes essential that the government assure that it is performed to public expectations. That has become the case with air travel. It flies in the face of logic that any steps be taken toward dismantling the air traffic control system and turning functions over to the private sector. I have been working with and debating officials in the Administration on the merits of privatizing government functions. As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I have been deeply concerned about the outsourcing of military jobs for many months. Clearly, this is another attempt to bring the private sector in to perform duties carried out by the civil service and other professionals. Mr. Speaker, I am not against the private sector nor making a profit. But there are instances where making profits should be a totally secondary consideration. Profit must not be the bottom line in assuring public air travel safety. Perhaps privatizing OMB would be a good next step. It might bring some level of common sense to the Administration.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, my flight from Los Angeles was delayed in departing and I unavoidably missed two rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: On rollcall No. 208, H.R. 4800 to make the adoption tax credit permanent, ``Yea''. On rollcall No. 207, to make permanent the tax exemption for payments to Holocaust survivors, ``Yea''.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate the month of May 2002 as Asian Pacific American Heritage Month. In June 1977, Representatives Frank Horton of New York and Norman Y. Mineta of California introduced a House resolution that called upon the President to proclaim the first 10 days of May as Asian Pacific Heritage Week. That was later followed by a Senate bill introduced the following month by Senators Daniel Inouye and Spark Matsunaga. On October 5, 1978, President Jimmy Carter signed a Joint Resolution designating the annual celebration. In May 1990, the holiday was expanded further when President George Bush designated May to be Asian Pacific American Heritage Month. The month of May was chosen to commemorate the arrival of the first Japanese immigrants to the United States in May 1843. H. Res. 408, introduced by my colleague and the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus Chair, Representative David Wu, recognizes the contributions of Asian Pacific Americans to our Nation. As an original cosponsor of this resolution, I recognize and commend how Asian Pacific Americans have contributed to the prosperity and vitality of our society. Whether in government, business, education, the military, science, technology, or the arts, Asian Pacific Americans bring to our society a rich cultural heritage representing many languages, ethnicities, and religious traditions. Diversity represents one of our country's greatest strengths. I am honored to represent the State of Hawaii in Congress. Much of the character of my State and district is a result of the great diversity Asian Pacific Americans have brought to our country. I hope all Americans recognize the contributions these groups have made to our national identity and culture.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, one of the motivating forces in my life to enter electoral politics was civil rights, and the other element that I wanted to devote whatever energy I could in terms of politics was nuclear proliferation. What we are about to do today, I think, may set us on the path that for many of us has been decades in the realizing. I want to pay tribute especially to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). When I think of someone who I believe to be the ideal Member of Congress, ready to deal with Members in every way, in a straightforward and forthright manner, when I think of someone who has a tenacious capacity to pursue his ideals, I think of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), and I think there is an amalgam today of interests on behalf of peace. I just want to reiterate for the record what the policy will be when the gentleman from Pennsylvania's (Mr. Weldon) and the gentleman from South Carolina's (Mr. Spratt) work comes to fruition. Greater cooperation, transparency and confidence with the Russian federation regarding nuclear weapons, policy, forestructure, safeguards, testing, proliferation, prevention, infrastructure, production and dismantlement, everything associated with nuclear proliferation in our attempt to deal with it in three-dimensional human terms is in this amendment, and the wording that has been arrived at, because the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) are not theologians on this floor, they are legislators. Legislators in every good sense of the word, and I am proud to be associated with them. Motion to Rise Offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, although I am disappointed in the rule before this body, I rise in strong support of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, and urge my colleagues to support this important measure. I deeply regret the decision of the Rules Committee to prohibit several critical amendments from being considered here today. I would first like to recognize our committee leadership, Chairman Stump and Ranking Member Skelton, for the bipartisan bill they have crafted to address the immediate needs of our Armed Forces. Our committee has a long tradition of working across party lines to ensure the readiness and well-being of our Armed Forces, and I am greatly pleased to have participated in yet another cooperative effort with my Armed Services colleagues. We all know that Chairman Stump has announced this intention to retire at the end of this Congress. His steadfast leadership, acknowledged in the title of this bill, will be missed, and I know that the entire House wishes him the best of luck in the future. I would also like to commend my very good friend, Jim Saxton, Chairman of the Military Installations and Facilities Subcommittee, whom I have been so fortunate to work closely with, both on Armed Services and the Resources Committees. His sincere concern for the quality of life of our troops, as well as his truly bipartisan, cooperative leadership, have guaranteed an equitable bill that directly answers the pressing needs for our military infrastructure. I would like to thank the committee staff for their tireless work and invaluable expertise. These professionals have been working day in and day out, weekends included, for the past two months, to put together the best bill possible. I would especially like to thank the Military Installations and Facilities Subcommittee professional staff, George Withers and Tom Hawley. No subcommittee is better served than ours with dedicated, smart, and consummate staff. As ranking member of the Military Installations and Facilities Subcommittee, I am especially concerned about the effect this bill will have on our military housing and infrastructure. Our Subcommittee labored hard to compensate for an anemic construction budget proposed by the President--a budget $1.7 billion lower than that put forward last year. From this highly unsatisfactory starting point, our Subcommittee added $425 million to fund projects vital to the Services. An ongoing campaign against global terrorism is not an excuse to abandon our campaign against substandard facilities and housing. Funding for military construction must match the rhetoric; otherwise, we will lose the battle for quality people willing to serve. Our people, and their living and working conditions, must continue to be our number one priority. Given the military's current operational tempo, it is imperative that we show our appreciation for those who volunteer to go in harm's way. These men and women pledge to support and defend American democracy, both at home and abroad, often at great personal sacrifice and for significant periods of time. We owe it to them, and to their families, to keep our promise of increased safety and morale in the home and in the workplace. In pursuit of such a goal, this bill authorizes $678.4 million--$17.7 million more than the President's request--for construction and improvement of 3,447 family housing units and the privatization of over 30,000 units. Privatization authorities, extended in last year's defense bill, provide our military accelerated opportunities to renovate and build vastly improved family housing developments with private sector capital and I applaud the continuation of this important program. Our committee also included $1.2 billion for construction of 49 new barracks and dormitories in the FY03 authorization and $8.6 million in H.R. 4547, the Cost of War Against Terrorism Authorization Act, for unaccompanied personnel housing in Qatar. Once again, attention to the living conditions of our single soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines has been a high priority for our committee, and I sincerely hope that we can bring all of our barracks up to the same excellent standard set by the Army's Whole Barracks Renewal at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii. I am especially pleased to note the $17.6 million provided to build Child Development Centers. This represents funding for four such centers, $6.9 million and one more than recommended by the President's budget, and acknowledges the emphasis this Congress and the military places on the needs of service members with children. Military couples and single parents alike benefit when the military recognizes their specific needs and eases their child-care burdens. Our achievements in military construction will be an ongoing effort aimed at providing quality living and working facilities for our entire military family, stationed at home and overseas. I know that under Mr. Saxton's excellent stewardship, the Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities will continue to focus on raising the living and working standards for our Armed Forces. They have volunteered to protect our freedom. Now we must protect them by building safe, modern facilities for the 21st century military. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, Native American sacred lands are under attack as never before in this country and we must work together and be willing to put teeth into legislation to protect these lands once and for all. The Native Hawaiians in my district are very spiritual and instinctively honor that which we receive from nature. Indeed the goddess of fire, ``Pele'' working through the volcanoes created most of the great State of Hawaii. She is still very active and very honored. There are specific areas in my state which are sacred to the Native Hawaiians. Although the areas do not have a large steeple or white- washed fence around them, they nonetheless deserve to be respected and protected. We have begun remediation on the sacred island of Kahoolawe and protected it from further destruction as a military bombing range. But there is so much more to be done. The problem is that we have a few laws that dance around the idea of protecting native sacred lands which use words like ``consultation'' or ``accommodate'' but are inadequate to simply stop potential desecration. Occasionally, we are able to stop the mining of one sacred site, or the demolition of another. But the time has come for Congress to enact strong legislation to protect Native American sacred lands.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, my remarks today are of a personal nature because I expect that the relationship that most of us have to Lionel Hampton is in fact personal. I recall very clearly I think almost the first moment that I became aware of what was in fact America's contribution to the music of the world, jazz, when I inadvertently one afternoon was at a friend's house, and, completely without knowledge of what exactly I was doing, I had recently taken up the trumpet, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) is laughing at the moment because he knows when I say ``taken up the trumpet,'' I had just picked it up, because I was not able to do much more than that. I was a living example of ambition over technique and talent, and I can see that that relates then to a lot of Members here. But what had happened was I saw something that said ``Carnegie Hall Concert, 1938, Benny Goodman Orchestra,'' and I had no idea at that time as a little boy what that might involve. For those who are familiar with it, this was the concert that was made almost as an afterthought, with a single overhead microphone, tape that was in Benny Goodman's closet for many years, finally found it, and that was when the quartet that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) cited, the first integrated quartet, not integrated in terms of musicians, integrated in terms of America's true voice of jazz, with white and black musicians, had been gathered together, with Teddy Wilson on piano and Gene Kruppa on drums, and, of course, Benny Goodman playing the lead in the quartet on clarinet and Lionel Hampton on the vibes. When I heard that quartet playing, I had never heard anything like it in my life. It is so vivid in my mind, even now as I am speaking. And it is an emotional experience, because we have certain transcendent moments in our lives, and that was not just one of them, but perhaps one that most formed the world for me, a world view at the time, as to what was possible. The excitement of it, the vitality of it, the vividness of the playing, the exuberance, it was everything and anything that could be expected and hoped for in American music and, by extension then, our gift, as I said before, to the world. Lionel Hampton was a particularly meaningful part of that, because, along with Gene Kruppa on the drums, I do not think you can find, except perhaps in the hero of both of them, Louis Armstrong, anyone in jazz more enthusiastic, more full of life, more expressive of the innate vitality of jazz, than Gene Kruppa and Lionel Hampton playing together; and that excited me as a young boy. It motivated me in trying to do the best I could with that trumpet, becoming involved in a jazz band in high school; and I cannot think, as I look back and I try to recall in my life to this point, of a single minute, a single moment, when I was not happy playing music, that it did not give me a sense of self that was always by definition optimistic, I can tell my colleagues, if they ever heard me play. I had a great tone, though. That was the thing. If only Hampton heard it, he would have said, kid, you got a great tone; too bad you missed out on the talent part. I cannot think of a single moment when I was not happy, not because I had any ambition to play the way that Hampton and Krupa and Goodman and Wilson played, but that that was my way of sharing with them the creative instinct that is in all of us and which had been freed in all of us by Lionel Hampton and all of the pioneers of jazz in this country. It is fitting, of course, that we celebrate this today because Lionel Hampton is, of course, approaching almost a century. He has achieved iconic status, and for good reason, because that talent and that liveliness and that exuberance for life and for his music has been carried over into every venue in which he has exposed himself to the American public and, in fact, the world. If there is anything that characterizes Lionel Hampton, and for those who have not had the opportunity to see him in person, to listen to him in person, they have missed out on one of the greatest experiences of life. There is no one in music, there is no one in life that exudes more of the core of creativity and what it means to be a human being in terms of that creativity than Lionel Hampton. I want to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that we, as a species, differentiate ourselves from all of the other species on the earth by our ability to reflect and our ability to imagine. As I reflect on this life force called Lionel Hampton, and as I reflect on the capacity to create that he exemplifies, I can think of no greater example of what it means to be a good and true human being and creative person, a life force of which we can all be proud to have known musically and to be able to honor today. Mr. OTTER: Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

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

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), who is representing the Pentagon here today, as it resides in his district.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 368, introduced by my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), as indicated by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), and endorsed by numerous other Members of the House. The resolution commends the outstanding progress made thus far by the Pentagon Renovation Program and its contractors in reconstructing the section of the Pentagon damaged by the terrorist attack. On September 11, 2001, Mr. Speaker, our Nation suffered four unprovoked terrorist attacks, three of which found their aim in two of our most powerful symbols of strength and democracy. Two days after the attacks, the Army asked the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), myself, and several other Members involved in the Subcommittee on Military Construction to visit the Pentagon site and survey the damage sustained there. Like the rest of the American public, we were stunned by the gash in what had previously seemed to be the impenetrable exterior of the Pentagon. What really caught our attention, though, was the work already under way. A small city of support was buzzing on the lawn. Firefighters were still battling flare-ups and hot spots, and military and civilian personnel were securing the building and sifting through the debris. No one was waiting to be told what to do. They were just doing what they knew needed to be done. The Pentagon Renovation Program has exceeded every expectation. The American public realized the significance of healing this visible wound as soon as possible, and the Phoenix Project has made it a reality. Government and contract personnel put their shoulders to the wheel, at times laboring around the clock, to tear down the most severely damaged sections and to rebuild it from the ground up. Demolition was supposed to take 7 or 8 months, Mr. Speaker. The team completed it in 1 month and 1 day. That is the power of American resolve. I have the utmost confidence that the Renovation Program will meet its ultimate goal to have people back at their desks by September 10, 2002. There could be no greater tribute to those who lost their lives than to know that the men and women of the Department of Defense are once again doing the business of the country from their proper Pentagon offices. Mr. Speaker, let us honor these Americans, public workers and private citizens, willing to dedicate themselves to the rebuilding of our national morale. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I was unable to cast my vote on two rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: Rollcall 48, Approval of the Journal: ``aye''; rollcall 49, Previous Question: ``nay.''

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, if we hear one more talk about special interests. This is all special interests. The question is whether it is in the public interest or not. I can tell my colleagues what is going to happen, and we all better remember it. All politics is local. And out where I am anyway, if anyone thinks they are going to show the football game at one time and another infomercial at another time, and that is going to work out somehow in the number of days that you got where you get the lowest rate, you are dreaming. What is going to happen is the local advertisers, aside from me or aside from my colleagues, are going to have to make up the difference. And I am not going back in my district and tell people that are trying to make a living, especially after 9/11, in their advertising that they have to pay more so that people can listen to me. All I am trying to do when I get down there is express all the virtues I have. And at least in my district they already know I am full of virtue. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Burr-Green amendment. It obviates Section 305 of underlying bill, a provision that does not address the central issues of the campaign finance debate: soft money and so-called ``issue ads''. The language in Section 305 is well intentioned. It seeks to lower the costs of campaigns, a goal everyone agrees is worthwhile. However, the mechanism if flawed. Forcing broadcasters to charge artificially low rates for political ads only invites them to look elsewhere to make up the lost revenue. Section 305 virtually forces them to raise the rates for non-political ads. Using an example from my home state of Hawaii, is it realistic to expect a station to charge the same rate for the UH-BYU football game as for a late-night infomercial? If we force broadcasters to do that, we shouldn't be surprised when business economics compel them to charge more for the ads in slots with smaller audiences. And who ultimately winds up paying for the added charge? Not the advertisers--they're going to turn around and make it up with higher prices for their goods and services. So the ultimate subsidizer of forced ad rate reductions is--you guessed it--the consumer. That's you, me and all the people in our districts. We'll pay more for food, prescription drugs, gasoline-- everything from Spam musubi to that neighbor island trip for a family reunion. The bottom line is that Burr-Green is pro-consumer. It has no effect on the thrust of Shays-Meehan. This is an amendment that every Member can support, regardless of which side of this debate you're on.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, in the matter of rollcall 477, H.R. 3008, I was recorded as voting ``no'' when I intended to vote ``yea.''

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, just last week I was on this floor lamenting as intently as I could bring to bear the idea that we were passing a bill having to do with the Andes and so-called free trade when we were unable to come to a conclusion with respect to not just unemployment, but with respect to the human needs in this Nation, throughout this Nation. I said at that time why should people from New York have to come to the floor and beg for the opportunity to have a redress of this egregious grievance that has been committed against us in the United States. I have an article here on what was called a bone-sopping rainy day, hundreds of unemployed people in Waikiki coming hoping they could get a job working on invasive species in Hawaii, to work with their hands in the fields to try to work to make our environment better. We have 31,000 people out of work directly as a result of September 11. What I am asking is cannot the example of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the appropriators here be brought to bear when we deal with the other bills that are coming forward with respect to how we are going to deal with the economic trauma that has hit the whole country? Mr. Chairman, perhaps the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) at that time misunderstood my quest that day. I voted against the Democrat bill and the Republican bill that is supposed to be dealing with economic stimulus. Let us use what the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) has done and what the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) has done, and what the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) has done. Let us use what the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) has done by way of leadership on the economic stimulus program and as Republicans and Democrats draw together on behalf of the entire Nation with New York leading the way, and this amendment leading the way, showing us what we can do as Americans to come together and have victory.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, our good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), has a lot of good things said about him. How fast it goes, does it not? Just a few minutes ago we were over here talking in the Committee on Appropriations how we were trying to work this out, and now the gentleman finds himself in this position. You notice how lonely he is over there. Notice how people are not rushing down here to defend this position. Now we can understand that. We are all legislators here. But let us go over what is taking place here. There is a victory for the forces that attacked us if we are able to be divided this way. I am here to state that this is politics. We need to vote this amendment for the reason that these folks brought up over here and that they are valiantly defending over here. Supplementals. If we can handle it by supplementals, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) is reduced to the position of saying, look, we are not trying to hurt anybody else, even though that is what the result is going to be. Let us do it by supplemental. Let us deal with that because the revenues are going down all over the country, and it does not matter whether you are Republican or you are a Democrat. But I will state this, if this Miller amendment fails, it will be a bell ringer in the arguments that are going to be made in the next fall in the elections. And some of the people that have been supporting folks on the other side of the aisle, believe me, are going to find themselves in a very difficult political position. And that position will be how is it possible that a promise could be made that all of us are supposed to pull together, Democrat and Republican, but we are hurting the very people at the grassroots that are supporting this war effort. These are unemployed. I am taking this from the preliminary monthly report of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And the people of New York are going to get hurt in the sense that they get $60 million, but the people in New Jersey or Hawaii, my people, and I note in passing December 7 was brought up here. I ought to know about that. And we dealt with that with supplementals. How is it possible for us to attack the unemployed in order to pay for a political strategy over here with respect to the supplemental budget that we are supposed to put forward, the stimulus? How is it possible that we could attack our own people? We are eviscerating ourselves. We are devouring ourselves in order to get behind a political strategy that is going to be a loser for my colleagues. I guarantee my colleagues this, there is not a person on that side of the aisle that supports the position of trying to defeat the Miller amendment that could stand up to anybody in any neighborhood board meeting, in any community meeting and defend that position. Let us vote for the Miller amendment if my colleagues want to be here next year and they want to be here defending the interests of the American people rather than the interests of American corporations that are trying to take advantage of us.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, on October 11, 2001, Mr. John P. Craven, the President and founder of the Common Heritage Corporation, Honolulu, Hawaii, was honored as a Doherty Lecturer in our Nation's Capital. I would like to share some of his thoughts and comments about our Nation and the sea with my colleagues by having his enclosed keynote speech entered into the Congressional Record. What Americans Should Know About Our Nation and the Sea (By John P. Craven) The days of my years are more than three score and ten and I find myself called upon to share the experiences of a lifetime of involvement with a diverse set of vocations and avocations--all involving the ocean. To be chosen as the Doherty lecturer is a particularly special invitation, inasmuch as it is an honor to which I have aspired for longer than I can remember. When to my surprise I received word of my selection, I lost no time in weighing anchor and setting sail. The formal invitation arrived several days later and I discovered that I was sailing under false colors. I was not invited, as I assumed, as the flamboyant master of submarine espionage depicted in the best selling book Blind Man's Bluff. Instead it was clear that my invitation was based on my role as the Past Director of the Law of the Sea Institute, an international NGO dedicated to the creation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. I was thus expected to say, as I will say, that it is imperative that the United States ratify this convention. It was also apparent that I was invited as the President of the Common Heritage Corporation, a company intimately involved in the use of ocean resources and dedicated to the management of innovation involved in the use of ocean resources and dedicated to the management of innovation for the benefit of humanity. I was thus also expected to say, as I will say, that society must commit itself to research and development of programs leading to the use of ocean resources and ocean space to change our world into an environmentally sustainable habitat for its burgeoned and burgeoning population. I am here today, therefore, as the wearer of three distinctly different caps: one representing my years of involvement in national security, another designating me as a proponent of translational law and justice and a third worn by an innovator of futuristic technology. Yet it is my contention that my roles are connected by more than just the ocean. They also form an integrated view of the future--a view that I believe society must come to accept for its survival. Through the anecdotes that follow, I hope to provide my fellow Americans with insights into the lessons that I have learned during my careers, with the hope of convincing you about the importance--indeed the need--of sharing my hopes and aspirations for humanity. Those of you familiar with my own recent book, The Silent War, may recall my description of ``The Polaris Marching and Chowder Society.'' This Honolulu-based group initially consisted of submariners that had a role in the development of the Polaris Fleet Ballistic Missile system (the nation's first undersea strategic deterrent). The Society has met for breakfast once each month for the past two decades. I quote from my book here: ``What prevents this breakfast from being just another gathering of old timers is the regular attendance of the active duty commander of the submarine forces of the Pacific fleet and members of his staff. This is a family breakfast and a rare opportunity for the family elders to offer their wisdom to the young in command. I am an adopted member of this family and, except for myself, all are qualified to wear the dolphins of the submarine service.'' A surprising number are also qualified to wear the master divers pin, suggesting that they are a part of the teams of ``saturated divers'' (i.e., humans as marine mammals living on the open ocean seabed of the world's continental shelves). They have carried out highly classified ``special operations'' of intelligence gathering for more than thirty years. At the Society's meeting this past October 3rd, the events of September 11th were fresh in all members' minds. I distributed copies of The Silent War to young officers who were first time breakfast attendees. I noted that my book was written with the tacit encouragement of the Navy and the Intelligence services to tell the story of these operations as they should be told, without compromising national security. The very existence of these special operations was a secret until the publication of Blind Man's Bluff. Sensitive details will not be revealed or discussed at this or any other meeting of the Marching and Chowder Society, but my book details the philosophy and strategy employed in winning the Cold War without firing a shot. The relevance of that philosophy and that strategy to the war against terrorism was a major topic at the Society's last meeting. I reminded the Society of an unclassified talk given by former CIA Director Robert Gates at a reunion of the submarine Parche--the winner of seven Presidential Unit citations. He asserted that the CIA had four classes of heroes: (1) Operatives in the field who intercepted vital communications; (2) scientists and technicians who designed equipments and units that could intercept communications; (3) the operators of these equipments in environments where their skills were required and where their lives were in danger; and (4) the analysts in the intelligence agencies who interpreted the results of these missions and transmitted them to the President for those national policy positions and actions which would deter war and win peace. Director Gates then informed the men of Parche that the missions of the United States Navy submarine service were the most important of all the missions that had been conducted and that their story ``had to be told.'' This morning meeting ended with the thought that now more than ever the story had to be told for its relevance to the new conflict. Indeed, that very morning Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld reminded the public of the long drawn out but successful Cold War experience that we might have to endure to resolve the current terrorism conflict. What emerged from that meeting were insights into what I might characterize as my first lesson of this afternoon: We cannot ask the Federal Government to reveal how many cruise missiles, cable tapping, undersea surveillance units have been built and deployed. Indeed, it is possible that nobody knows. The compartmentalization of this program within the Navy and within other Federal agencies is such that it is doubtful that any single individual has the knowledge of the ``need to know'' the full panoply of our undersea capability. What then should Americans know? At the very least, we should know and understand that the people of the United States have occupied ``inner space,'' or the oceans of our planet, in a manner that we have not accomplished or cannot hope to accomplish in outer space for a decade or more. Americans should know that we can publish and proclaim this underwater capability in a way that will not compromise national security but will tell those that would do us harm that we are in full control of the undersea environment. We should so publish; we should so proclaim. I had to leave the Chowder Society breakfast early to hasten to Washington to attend the forum on the international law of terrorism organized by our host, John Norton Moore. En route To Dulles, I was recognized by a visibly nervous flight attendant who had seen me on The History Channel. The cause of her concern was understandable to all of us I'm sure, but some reflection and perspective are in order here. This woman and a hundred or so others were hurtling through the sky at 40,000 feet and more than five hundred miles per hour--a remarkable transportation achievement. Science and technology had made air travel so safe that the statistical likelihood or her demise remained an extraordinarily low probability event--recent tragic events notwithstanding. To remind and reassure her, I gave her a copy of The Silent War inscribed with my most immediate poetic thoughts of the moment: ``And the night shall be filled with music and the cares that infest the day shall fold their tents like the nomads and as silently steal away.'' Later that evening as with headphones on my head and brandy in my hand I looked out the window to see the beautiful glow of the lights of Denver below before sweet sleep possessed me. My last thoughts were: ``Shall I be lifted to the skies on flowery beds of ease while others seek to win the prize and sail through stormy seas.'' The lesson of this anecdote was first taught to us by Franklin Delano Roosevelt as we faced the prospect of World War II: ``The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.'' Upon my arrival in Washington, I listened to a set of provocative legal papers presented by brilliant scholars including the Honorable Stephen Schwebel, former President International Court of Justice, Professor Ruth Wedgwood of the Yale Law School and Professor Malvina Halberstam of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. A central issue discussed was whether in the present instance, state sponsored assassination in defense of a terrorist would be murder or legally justified as an act of self-defense.remarked to a most distinguished legal colleague seated next to me that I thought it was a matter of perspective as to whether you were holding the trigger or peering into the barrel of a gun. My colleague shot me down with the rejoinder that my remark was political and not legal. I believe Gandhi had the better view. Certainly to the surprise of many not closely familiar with his philosophy, he has written: ``I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advice violence.'' To be sure, Gandhi characterized violence as an animal response to an immediate attack and non-violence, where possible, as a civilized alternative. Violence under attack becomes acceptable, however, when there is no alternative--that is when a decision to take no action emerges from fear rather than strength. This lesson is one that is particularly timely to Americans today. In any event, all participants including Schwebel agreed that the definitive word of law was enunciated by the United Nations Security Council Resolutions of September 12 and September 28. Indeed until the Security Council spoke unanimously, the United States was not assured of the protection of all of the member States in its actions against terrorist acts. Americans should finally realize that, regardless of individual political feelings about this international body, we have no choice but to seek its protection when a declaration of International Law is necessary in the face of a World crisis. The Law of the Sea Treaty is no different. This is one of the most comprehensive treaties ever negotiated and it has been modified to comply with all of the demands of the United States. Our manifest inability to enforce its provisions through our customary system of law, with the Coast Guard and internal legislation such as the Magnussen Act, demonstrates that our enforcement mechanism requires international cooperation. This cooperation can be assured only if we ratify and, parenthetically, pay our United Nations dues to support the Convention. In contemplating the critical issues concerning national security and transnational law that I have set forth this afternoon, it is essential to consider the fundamental problem from which they emerge. These issues are rooted in the underlying reality that the resources of the world are limited while the potential consumers of these resources continue to grow in numbers. Thus, I now finish my Doherty Lecture wearing the hat of the President of the Common Heritage Corporation, or CHC. I established CHC a decade ago in order to address the problems of an increasing global population, now over 6 billion, and its associated migration to the coastal zone. CHC's product is the demonstrated design of an environmentally sustainable habitat for installation on coastal deserts having access to deep ocean water. Our facility on the Kona coast of Hawaii is a showroom for the demonstration of such an installation. This showroom was specifically designed for Haiti, although our first installation may well occur in the Marshall Islands or in a form suitable for the affluent developed world on the island of Oahu. Any of you who have visited Haiti know that it is a coastal desert on the lee side of a trade wind island. It has a population of six million living in desperate and deprived conditions. The local fishing industry does not have a single motorized fishing boat or any cooling or refrigeration. Fish are caught off the northern coast and by the time they arrive in the market at Port au Prince, about a third of the catch are not edible, even by Haitian standards. Haiti's fishermen care not that the maximum sustainable yield of the ocean was exceeded some twenty-five years ago. They must fish or perish. Agriculture and manufacturing are non-existent and the government is effectively dysfunctional. Common Heritage Corporation has a joint venture agreement with a Haitian Company, ``Energie General,'' that would be capable of managing the installation of one of our facilities, if the political climate of Haiti were receptive to such an installation. Today it cannot. We nevertheless are proceeding, waiting for that day to come. What technology is in use at CHC's facility? It utilizes the sun and deep ocean water as its primary resource. Deep Ocean water or DOW is very cold, very rich in nutrients and very biologically pure. We convert seawater into fresh water in a device called a microclimate tower, which operates like nature--using the cheap cold at the top of the tower to condense vapor from hot ocean water at the bottom. We do air conditioning and industrial cooling utilizing deep ocean water that passes through reclaimed automobile radiators. We grow cold-water algae utilizing the deep ocean water nutrients, and then use the algae as compost and as food for humans, for abalone, for shrimps, lobsters and fish. We have also developed a form of agriculture that utilizes deep ocean water passing through PVC pipes in the ground, producing more than enough condensate for irrigation and a thermodynamic environment that can only be characterized as a super spring. But our facility is also designed as habitat. Accordingly, it does more than produce the basic necessities of life. Young children who visit our facility are quick to understand a habitat is more than life--it must also foster liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To that end, our facility features every kind of crop and food product, every kind of flower, parks and gardens and athletic fields for soccer and even golf. Our facility has been technically successful beyond our wildest dreams. By way of illustration, let me tell you what we are doing with grapes. We have grape vines that grow in the hot desert without any rain or external irrigation. Cold ocean water pipes embedded three feet deep at the root zone provide the irrigation water and the thermodynamic climate. When the grapes are ripe and harvested, the cold water is turned off. The vines are then pruned and, after a week of dormancy, the cold water is turned on again and the vines produce yet another crop. Three abundant crops per year are produced, one of which is illustrated by the photograph that has been distributed. But returning to Haiti briefly, we confront the basic problem that it cannot avail itself of our technology for the simple reason that it requires a significant number of dollars to install a system. Export crops are, of course, one way to raise dollars, but these crops must first be produced. In order to simulate the economic obstacles to the installation of a CHC sustainable facility in a country like Haiti, CHC operates as ``bare-bones'' a corporation as you are likely to see in the developed world. CHC has not borrowed any money from a bank. It utilizes where legal and possible its management and student trainees for construction and labor, much as is done by organizations such as Habitat for Humanity. Apart from a small amount of electric power and a very limited amount of external supplies, the entire facility is self-sustaining. Thus, the jar of jelly provided to each of you symbolically and literally represents what CHC's technology can make possible with developing world production techniques, notwithstanding all of the economic limitations. The glass jars and tops were manufactured in the Dominican Republic and purchased in bulk quantities at extremely low cost. The label was designed by a member of CHC's Board of Directors and printed using an obsolete computer printer purchased at a thrift shop. The cartons were assembled and loaded by my family here in Washington--and we could not prevent my two- year-old granddaughter from filling the boxes and applying stickers and decorations on some of the boxes as a form of play. What more can CHC do to demonstrate the viability of environmentally sustainable habitats? We carried our PowerPoint road show to Mexico and gave a high level presentation the government agency responsible for economic development for the poor. Enthralled by our presentation, they asked how much an initial 100-acre installation would cost. Between five and ten million dollars was CHC's reply--a bargain. They were appalled. The agency's entire budget for the year was only 70 million dollars--a simple result of the devaluation of the peso. Committing up to one-seventh of their resources to a single project was simply out of the question. Americans, we and other countries must find a way to avoid these Catch 22s and to start a development process that promotes an environmentally sustainable world. This world must be capable of providing all of its citizens with a reasonable standard of life. And, we must start now. I speak not from an abstract perspective of what a good and just society would do. Instead, I am asserting an imperative. The tragic incidents of the past month have revealed that we can no longer ignore the resource limitations that confront the world. The gap between rich and poor nations grows greater and greater; the population of the developing world grows at unsustainable rates, yet even the best-intentioned citizens of developed nations have done little more than engage in impassioned rhetoric. We have let our global educational and research activities atrophy and decay; we have imposed the product of our material comforts on the impoverished and peoples of the undeveloped world. Should it surprise us that people with literally nothing to lose might choose to lash out against us? We have replaced reality with a dazzling world of virtual reality, but September 11th has taught us that there are realities that we can no longer ignore. I speak from a lifetime of immersion in that real world. Even so, from that experience I conclude that there is hope. Americans we must and we can work with the World to end terrorism--there is no alternative; we must and we can work with the world to defuse the threats of war--there is no alternative; we must and we can work with the world to establish an international regime for the wise use of the ocean--there is no alternative, and; we must and we can start the development process that leads to an environmentally sustainable world habitat for humanity--there is no alternative--there is none.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I have about 2 minutes to reach out to not just the people on this floor, but everybody who is listening in their offices. I feel like I almost have to conjure John the Baptist to get this across. Why are we debating a bill on the Andes when people are hurting all across this country right now today? If anything can be seen as showing the irrelevance of this Congress while people are losing their jobs all across this country, we cannot get a bill on this floor for a retail sales tax holiday. We cannot get the Travel America Now Act on this floor. But we can come in and get a bill so that drug dealers in the Andes can invest in gardening or anything else that they want to get into in order to come into this country and sell those products as well. Do you think for a second that the drug dealers are going out of business with this bill? We have got to come on this floor today and vote this down and demand that the Committee on Ways and Means come in here with bills that are going to address the economic problems that have happened since September 11. All this calm discussion on this floor completely bypasses what has happened to the people in this country. All the small businesses in this country that come down here and we say we honor every day in this Congress, we are ignoring them right now. I am as hot as I can be about this because we are being ignored. I feel my heart pounding every day because I see people out of work. They cannot pay their bills in the next 60 days. They cannot make their mortgage payments. They cannot tell their kids why they cannot have clothes on their backs when they go to school, and we are talking about the Andes. We are talking about we need to move. This bill is time sensitive. What is time sensitive is whether we are responding to the needs of the people in this country, right now, post-September 11. People from New York have to come down here and beg, beg this Congress to see whether we are going to respond to them. I do not want to hear any lectures about how the economy will recover in 3 years. I do not want to hear lectures on philosophic permutations that might take place in the overall economy. I want action now on behalf of the people of this country. Vote this bill down and get bills on this floor that address the economic needs of this country right this second.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to the plight of seven polar bears languishing in a traveling animal show called the Suarez Brothers Circus. The circus is based in Mexico and travels around Central and South America, throughout the year, with its menagerie. In May 2001, the USFWS, in consultation with USDA, decided to issue a permit to allow the circus into Puerto Rico. This permit was issued over the objection of the Marine Mammal Commission. The Commission warned that the provenance of the bears was questionable and that there were serious deficiencies in the required paperwork for the bears. In June, Dr. Terry Maple, Director of Zoo Atlanta, contacted USDA and asserted that at least one of the bears had been imported under a false identity. The use of doctored or fabricated records is grounds for denying the circus a permit to exhibit. In August, during the hottest days of summer, the Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources filed animal cruelty charges against the circus for keeping the bears in 113 degree heat without access to water or air conditioning. Additional charges have been added for maintaining the bears in ``dirty or parasitic conditions''. Their trial date is scheduled for January 22, 2002. In October, the Marine Mammal Commission again wrote to USFWS and APHIS and outlined the numerous violations of federal law and expressed a fundamental concern about the appropriateness of using polar bears outdoors in a tropical climate. In their letter, the Commission noted violations of the Animal Welfare Act reported by APHIS on eight separate inspections. These violations included serious charges including inaccessibility to water and fans, a lack of structural integrity in the holding pens, and a lack of veterinary care. Just two weeks ago, APHIS testified before the Resources Committee that it has inspected the circus at least eleven times since June--as compared to the average number of inspections being one per year. The USDA has documented a clear pattern of non-compliance with the bare minimum standards of the Animal Welfare Act. Mr. Speaker, these polar bears are clearly suffering and need relief. These animals should be confiscated and placed in facilities that are capable of caring for their unique needs. Members of the House and Senate, including the Delegate from Puerto Rico, are circulating letters to colleagues and to the federal agencies requesting urgent action in this case, including an investigation and confiscation of the polar bears. Puerto Rico is no place for polar bears.