Neil Abercrombie

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, October 12, 2001 it was unavoidable that I missed two roll call votes. Had I been present, I would have voted: Roll Call 385--Motion to Recommit H.R. 2975, the anti-terrorism initiative--Yes. Roll Call 386--Passage of H.R. 2975, the anti-terrorism initiative.--No.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I am strongly opposed to the amendment altering the provisions of the Agriculture Committee's bill. Make no mistake about it. The purpose of this amendment to kill the sugar program, similar to the unsuccessful attempts in the past. The amendment will keep the current program, which has devastated domestic sugar. Today, there are only two commercial sugar plantations left in Hawaii, the result of the 1996 Act which has crippled the industry and left thousands of Americans unemployed, many of them in Hawaii. What this nation needs now is more American jobs, not fewer. In addition it would cut the existing supports by $.03 a pound. A rough calculation indicates such a move would transfer $500.0 million from the domestic sugar producers to the food processors. While sugar prices have plummeted, food prices have risen. The wholesale price of sugar has dropped 29 percent since the 1996 law while sweetened product prices have risen 4 percent-14 percent. It is not difficult to determine that consumers will not see one dime of that $500.0 million. It will go straight into the pockets of the food manufacturers and processors who have soaked up all the additional revenue resulting from staggeringly low sugar prices since the 1996 Act. Not only will the food processors unfairly benefit, but more foreign- produced sugar will pour into the country. My colleagues, in numerous cases, that imported sugar will certainly be produced by child labor and with no environmental protections. How on earth are we helping either our own country or the rest of the world by adopting this amendment? We've heard reports of candy manufacturers moving to Mexico. That is their prerogative, as much as I disagree with their abandoning America. The distortion that has been perpetuated, however, is that it is because of domestic sugar prices. Nothing could be further from the truth. Domestic sugar prices in Mexico have been consistently higher in Mexico than in the U.S. The reason they and other manufacturers have moved to Mexico is that labor costs are far lower and environmental protections are unenforced and ignored. The Mexican government, and other foreign producers, then dump production in excess of their domestic consumption, regardless of their domestic price, on the world market for whatever price they can get. That is called the ``world price'' of sugar. In reality, it is the dump price, and that is the price at which the supporters of the amendment want to purchase sugar. My colleagues, this amendment is strictly about money. It is about whether money will be paid to American workers for an American product produced with environmental protections and labor standards or whether it goes directly to the food processors and manufacturers to increase their profits regardless of the consequences domestically or internationally. The House Agriculture Committee has developed a fair, rational and effective way to keep this industry producing an American product by American workers. I urge you in the strongest possible terms to reject this cynical, ill-conceived attack on American sugar producers and on hard-working people.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I have been taking a couple of notes here today. We talk about the sugar program; but Mr. Chairman, we are really talking about people, because sugar is people. Yes, there are differences that we have with one another, but I hardly think it is worth anything to characterize each other or our positions in such apocalyptic terms. I think it makes more sense to try and think: What is it that we want to accomplish? The proponents say that there are trade barriers, but what we are really talking about here is whether or not we want to benefit from the importation of slave-driven wages in the rest of the world that provides this so-called cheap sugar. Why should we apologize, whether it is in Florida or whether it is in Hawaii, because our workers are the best-paid agricultural workers who produce the most? The way I learned this economics that I am always being preached to about is that if one works hard and is the best producer and is the most efficient, one is supposed to be rewarded, not castigated. Yet, that is what this would do. Let us remember what this particular amendment is all about. It is not about the program as such, it is to lower the price 1 cent. I can tell the Members, if they lower the price 1 cent, they will drive the producers out of business because their margin of profit, which the proponents said was only 5 percent, this is just lowering it 5 percent. So if we lower it 5 percent, we are going to drive these folks out of business because their margin of profit is not anything like the candy manufacturers. If the workers in Illinois or anyplace were going to get the benefit of this, I could see, okay, let us work on this. But they are not. It is just going to be for the profit that is being taken. So I want to indicate to the Members that we do not just have to look to the free sugar in the restaurants that is out there, but I ask Members to do this. In my right hand is a Diet Coke. In my left hand is a Coca-Cola Classic. Now, I got this from the cloakroom on the Democratic side of the aisle; and I guarantee Members, if I go to the cloakroom on the Republican side of the aisle, both of these cans of Coca-Cola cost the same amount of money. One has the sugar in it and one does not have the sugar in it, and they are taking the money, the same price for both cans of Coca-Cola, and they are taking the American public the same way. Mr. Chairman, I return the rest of my time and rest my case.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, and urge my colleagues to support this important measure. This year, we lost two great friends on the House Armed Services Committee, our former Chairman, Floyd Spence from South Carolina, and Norm Sisisky from Virginia. Both of these men dedicated the majority of their time here in Congress to ensuring the defense of our Nation, and they are deeply missed on the Committee and in this Congress. Their tremendous contributions to our national defense serve an as example to this Congress as we look to strengthen our military and continue to improve living and working conditions for our men and women in uniform. I would like to recognize Chairman Stump and Ranking Member Skelton for their astute leadership of this Committee and for the bipartisan manner in which they have crafted a bill to address the immediate needs of our Armed Forces. In the venerable tradition of the Armed Services Committee, these gentlemen have worked side by side, across party lines, to provide our military with the means to defend our Nation. I would also like to commend my good friend and colleague, 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 of our military infrastructure. Finally, I would like to thank the Committee staff for their tireless work and invaluable expertise. I would especially like to thank the Military Installations and Facilities Subcommittee professional staff, George Withers and Phil Grone, who is leaving the Committee to serve as an Administration official at the Pentagon. As Ranking Member of the Military Installations and Facilities Subcommittee, I am particularly proud of the remarkable boost this bill will give to our military housing and infrastructure. The Military Construction provisions build upon a healthy budget proposed by the President, and I am gratified to see that when it comes to taking care of our service members and their families, we are all unified in opinion. Our people, and their living and working conditions, must continue to be our number one priority. The unspeakable events of September 11, 2001, should not alter our commitment to quality of life initiatives. Five carrier battlegroups are currently underway, preparing for potential offensive operations. The President has authorized mobilization of up to 50,000 Ready Reservists. Now more than ever, it is imperative that we show our appreciation for those who volunteer to go in harm's way. Even in light of extreme uncertainty about the future, these young men and women pledge to support and defend American democracy, both at home and abroad. 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. This bill does just that. It authorizes $10.3 billion for construction and renovation of critical infrastructure and family housing, approximately $350 million more than the Administration's request. Our bill includes $1.2 billion to build 51 new barracks and dormitories for single and unaccompanied service personnel. Often, our junior, single soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines get overlooked in the rush to raise the standards on quality of life. This Committee has taken substantive steps to remedy this inequity, through improved living accommodations and a significant pay raise. The bill authorizes $1.1 billion for new construction and modernization of 6,800 family housing units--a down payment on our commitment to eradicate deteriorating, World War II-era living conditions. It also makes permanent the authorities in the Military Housing Privatization Initiative that use private sector expertise and capital to accelerate improvement of government-owned housing and help eliminate a serious shortage of quality affordable housing. Of special note, the Committee has responded to the concerns of our modern military families by recommending $36.2 million for six child development centers--a critical need for couples who both work as well as single parents. 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, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Mississippi.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues, please, because I know there is some question about objection. I am pleading with my colleagues, I am making a plea to my colleagues, one Member to another. Every one of my colleagues know me here, some longer than others. Every one of us are colleagues here. Every one of us understands that if another Member asks something of someone, that something is fundamental to the very well-being of their constituents. Please give the benefit of the doubt. That is what this is about tonight. I realize, as both the chairman and as the ranking member have made clear, I am sure there are a myriad of difficulties associated with this proposition, but there is good and sufficient time subsequent to tonight to deal with all of those. I am sure the chairman would agree and that the ranking member would agree. I am here to tell Members that the State of Hawaii is at risk of bankruptcy if there is not confidence in the people of this country being able to fly. I am not trying to deal with hyperbole, I am not trying to deal in rhetorical flights, I am saying the basic, fundamental, fiscal facts of life for my State. I am pleading with the gentleman. Surely none of us are sufficiently filled with wisdom to understand the ramifications of every nuance of this legislation, but we have to have enough confidence and trust in one another to give ourselves the opportunity to come to grips with these various problems, including, Mr. Speaker, the most fundamental one. What terrorists seek to do is not necessarily to kill people. If that happens, from their point of view, well and good. But they seek to instill fear and discord and anxiety and loss of confidence. That is what this is all about. We cannot succumb to that or they win. There is not a person in here, Mr. Speaker, since Tuesday, that has cast a vote with which they were completely at ease. I do not believe that a single Member here has been completely at ease, or maybe even mostly at ease with every vote. But I plead with any Member who is thinking of objecting tonight, please do not do it. Please give us the opportunity to act as colleagues. Please do not put at risk millions of jobs, not tens of thousands, millions of jobs. Do not forget that most of the foodstuffs in this country travel by air. The exports from State to State, it is not just road, it is in the air. So we must not take a chance that the legislation that has been crafted and the money associated with it will be dealt with anything other than in circumstances in which the greatest possible care will be taken when it comes to the floor after conference.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, on July 23 I was necessarily absent and was not able to vote on three recorded votes. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: H.R. 2137--Criminal Law Technical Amendments Act of 2001--Yes; H.R. 1892--Family Sponsor Immigration Act of 2001--Yes; S. 468--James Corman Federal Buildings Designation--Yes.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, June 13, I was unavoidably absent and I was unable to vote on two rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: Rollcall No. 158, approval of the Journal, ``yea'', Rollcall No. 159, passage of H.R. 1157, ``yea''.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, before I begin my formal remarks, I would like to pay tribute to my good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton). I think he is being a bit modest by simply citing the fact that he introduced this Asian elephant conservation bill and gave me the privilege of being able to sign it with him as the ranking member on his committee at that time. I am very grateful to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) and his staff, both for the majority and the minority, not only for the reauthorization on the present H.R. 700, but for the incredible, great work that the staff did with the introduction of the original bill. My respect for the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), I can say without reservation, was considerable before this took place, and has only risen since that time. If there is anyone in this body that carries through on the implications of any legislation with which he or she is associated, it is the gentleman from New Jersey. In this particular instance, as he cited in his remarks, the Asian elephant simply did not have the kind of profile, either in world opinion or in the consciousness of those interested in the environment and conservation throughout the world, that the African elephant did. The reauthorization in the previous bill is, of course, needed, and the work that has been done with regard to the African elephant and the role played by the United States of America in that has been considerable and most positive, as has been cited. But in this particular instance, because of the insight and the carry-through of the gentleman from New Jersey, the Asian elephant was able to achieve at least some place in the sun that it would not otherwise have occupied. The implications for southeast Asia in particular are considerable because, as I will state in my more formal remarks, the Asian elephant is in fact a flagship species with respect to all kinds of considerations in the environment and conservation of other species, and I firmly believe that in time to come, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) will be recognized not only as a pioneer with regard to Asian elephant conservation, but as one of the primary figures in the world environmental and conservation movement. I wish to add one other thing, Mr. Speaker. I also want to pay tribute to, and I wish he was on the floor so I actually could look him in the eye when I was saying it, because of the pleasure it would give me, I want to mention in particular the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), who has been instrumental in educating me for one, I can tell the Members, on the questions of conservation of wild animals and the environment. I think he has played a particularly positive role in support of the kinds of things that the gentleman from New Jersey has taken the lead on, and especially in the realm of wild animal conservation, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) is a leader. It is a pleasure to be associated with him in this regard, as well. That said, Mr. Speaker, with recent awareness of the increasing threat to the welfare of the Asian elephant, an already endangered species, a bill entitled the Asian Elephant Conservation Act of 1997 was introduced into the House of Representatives in June of 1997. It passed the House in October, on October 21, and the Senate on November 8, and was signed into law by the President on November 19, 1997. The act is designed to assist the conservation of Asian elephants by supporting and providing financial resources for the conservation programs of nations within the range of the Asian elephant, and projects of persons with demonstrated expertise in the conservation of Asian elephants. A grants program was established for awarding proposals that fulfilled the purpose described by the act. This act has been very successful, Mr. Speaker, and is not a foreign giveaway program. The funds appropriated under this act are matched by the recipient countries. It gives them the necessary support so they can leverage this money with their own resources to establish conservation and research programs, communication networks and administration, to save these endangered animals. Unless immediate steps are taken to conserve this magnificent animal, it will surely continue to disappear from much, if not most, of its traditional habitat. This program helps establish a win-win situation where recipient countries can explore management strategies that minimize poaching and negative elephant and human interaction in farming communities. In short, recipient countries are able to find solutions that are in their economic best interests. Also assisting these countries on a wide range of projects are numerous non-governmental organizations and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our good friends, the chairman and the ranking member, for giving us the opportunity to appear here. I want to say that while, for many, bills which come on the consent calendar may seem to be pro forma in presentation, over and over and over again when we examine the content and context of the bills before us, we find that they are addressing issues of prime importance, not only to people of the United States, but in many instances we can say to people of the world. This bill is in fact one of them. I am very, very pleased and proud to have been associated with it, and count it as among the genuine privileges of holding public office, particularly in the House of representatives, to be associated with the individuals who have made this day possible. Mr. Speaker, the Asian Elephant Conservation Act of 1997 was authored by U.S. Representative Jim Saxton (R-NJ) and myself. With recent awareness of the increasing threat to the welfare of the Asian elephant, already an endangered species, a bill entitled Asian Elephant Conservation Act of 1997 was introduced into the House of Representatives June 4, 1997. Passed by the House on October 21 and by the Senate on November 8, it was signed into law by the President on November 19, 1997. The act is designed to assist in the conservation of Asian elephants by supporting and providing financial resources for the conservation programs of nations within the range of Asian elephants and projects of persons with demonstrated expertise in the conservation of Asian elephants. A grants program was established for awarding proposals that fulfill the purpose described by the Act. This act has been very successful and is not a foreign ``give-away'' program. The funds appropriated under this Act are matched by the recipient countries. It gives them the necessary support so that they can leverage this money with their own resources to establish conservation and research programs, communication networks and administration to save these endangered animals. Unless immediate steps are taken to conserve this magnificent animal, it will surely continue to disappear from much, if not most, of its traditional habitat. This program helps establish a win-win situation where recipient countries can explore management strategies that minimize poaching and negative elephant and human interaction in farming communities. In short, recipient countries are able to find solutions that are in their economic best interests. Also assisting these countries on a wide range of projects are numerous non-governmental organizations and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The United States must continue their leadership in this very important conservation program. I cannot overemphasize that this is where a relatively small appropriation has helped leverage a very successful program that has stopped the decline of the Asian elephant saving it from possible extinction. We cannot allow the Asian elephant, which has such a direct impact on so many other species, to become extinct. The goal of this legislation is to stop the decline and hopefully rebuild the population of this irreplaceable species by financing with a small amount of federal money a number of conservation projects. According to international experts, there are fewer than 45,000 Asian elephants living in the wild. On a daily basis, these animals face the loss of their forest habitat, poachers who kill them for their bones, hide, ivory and meat, capture for use in Burma's timber industry, and conflicts between elephants and man. Unless immediate steps are taken to help conserve this species, it will continue to disappear from its historic habitat. We should not allow this magnificent animal to disappear from this planet. This investment by the United States will significantly improve the likelihood that wild Asian elephants will exist into the 21st century. The act was modeled after the highly successful African Elephant Conservation Act of 1988 and the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act of 1994. It established an Asian Elephant Conservation Fund to be administered by the U.S. Department of Interior. The measure would be authorized for 5 years and $5 million per year. The funding could be used for: Anti-poaching efforts, conservation management plans, translocation of threatened populations, monitoring of census figures and known populations, and public education for elephant conservation. This legislation is endorsed by organizations like the World Wildlife Fund, Safari Club International and other conservation groups. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following information on the Asian elephant: Facts on the Asian Elephant There are an estimated 35,000 to 45,000 Asian Elephants living in the wild in 13 Asian nations. The Asian Elephant is listed as ``endangered'' under the United States' Endangered Species Act. The major causes for elephants' ``endangered'' status are: Loss of habitat caused by population growth (all Asian Elephants required a shady or forest environment and the forest habitat in Asia is rapidly disappearing); fragmented populations of elephants (there are only 14 populations that have more than 1,000 elephants each); and poaching for meat, hide bones, ivory and teeth (bones and teeth are used in traditional Chinese medicine). The largest population of Asian Elephants in the wild are found in: India (20,000 to 24,000), Burma (5,000 to 6,0900), and Indonesia (2,500 to 4,500). Wild elephants are still captured and trained for use in logging operations in Burma. The Asian Elephant is a flagship species and its conservation has a positive impact on other animals like tigers, rhinoceros, clouded leopards, Malayan Sunbears, Hoolock gibbons, lion-tailed macaques and peacock pheasants. The Asian elephant can weigh up to 5400 kg (11,900 lb). It currently occupies forested habitats in hilly or mountainous terrain, up to about 3600 m (11,800'). An adult eats approximately 150 kg (330 lb) per day--mainly grasses but also leaves, twigs and bark. It feeds during the morning, evening and night and rests during the middle of the day, requiring shade during the hot season to keep from overheating. Elephants cannot go for long without water (they require 70-90 liters (19-24 gal) of fluid/day) and sometimes must travel long distances each day between their water supplies and feeding areas. One calf is born every 3-4 years after a pregnancy lasting about 22 months. Although mature male elephants may live alone, females live in family groups consisting of mothers, daughters and sisters, together with immature males. Wild elephants can live to be sixty years old. The Asian elephant once ranged from the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers in ancient Mesopotamia in the west, east through Asia south of the Himalaya to Indochina and the Malay Peninsula, including Sri Lanka and Sumatra and possibly Java, and north into China at least as far as the Yangtze River. In the 19th century it was still common over much of the Indian subcontinent, Sri Lanka and the eastern parts of its range. By 1978, Asian elephant were found in the same countries as they are at present. Female Asian elephants are not affected by ivory poaching (due to their lack of tusks), so poaching has not affected the overall population numbers of Asian elephants as drastically as it has in the case of the African elephant. The single most important cause of the decline of the Asian elephant has been the loss of habitat. They have also been affected by persecution due to the crop damage they are perceived to cause. Counties where it is currently found: 1996: Occurs in Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam. Maximum age: Sixty years in the wild (more than 80 years in captivity). Social organization: The Asian elephant is gregarious, and, although males sometimes live alone, females are always found in family groups consisting of mothers, daughters, sisters and immature males. In the 19th century, these family groups usually consisted of 30-50 animals, but much larger groups, as large as 100 individuals, were not uncommon. Sometimes an adult male can be associated with a herd. When not, adult males usually remain solitary and disperse over relatively small, widely overlapping home ranges; sometimes they gather together in small but temporary bull herds. They do not seem to be territorial, and there is a great amount of toleration between them, except possibly when the cows are in estrus. Asian elephants are very sociable and live in basic family units of one adult cow and her offspring. Daughters remain with their mothers, but sons leave at puberty, often joining bull groups or remaining solitary. Bull elephants associate with a family when a cow is in oestrus. This species does not appear to be territorial. Males have home ranges of about 15 square km, and herds of females of about 30 square km, which increases in the dry season. Seasonal migration has been made virtually impossible, due to human development. Females usually have one calf after a gestation period of 18-22 months and give birth every three to four years. The calves weigh about 100 kg at birth and suckle for about 18 months. They can eat some vegetation after several months. Asian elephants are now listed as endangered, and have long since vanished from Southwest Asia and most of China. Sri Lanka was once recognized for its large elephant populations, but today the numbers are being reduced. As the number of humans increases, the area of natural habitat that the elephants rely on is being depleted. Elephants are being forced onto farming areas, where they cause damage.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce a bill that would provide comparable retirement eligibility for Military Reserve Technicians as applies to those on active duty. For years, Congress has passed legislation on behalf of active duty service members and active duty retirees. Sometimes, full-time military reserve employees enjoy collateral benefits from this legislation. But often, they are not included. We are talking about Guard and Reserve employees who come to work in uniform each day; they are assigned to their military reserve unit and meet all military standards. They perform comparable, usually identical, military functions but in a civil service status. These are the employees that make our Guard and Reserve such a ``good deal'' for our country. Our reserve units can perform virtually all of the missions as their active duty counterparts at a fraction of the price because these dedicated full-time employees are available to provide continuity between unit training assembly, also known as drill, weekends. Our Armed Forces are undergoing a thorough analysis and transformation to insure we are able and equipped to meet the evolving national security needs of tomorrow. It is obvious that the Guard and Reserve will continue to have vital missions and roles in this transformation. The Air Force has fully integrated the Guard and Reserve into its Aerospace Expeditionary Forces and cannot perform their scheduled rotations without them. The Army is studying the prospects of involving National Guard components in a more substantial role in Homeland Defense as recommended in the Hart-Rudman study. Our hometown militia is here to stay, and so we must maintain benefits that will entice new young people to invest their future in the Guard and Reserves. One way to do this is to offer an attractive retirement package, similar to that of active duty members. This bill will do just that. Instead of having to wait until age 55 for a full civil service annuity, full-time military reserve technicians could retire at age 50. Or, once they have served over 20 years in civil service status, the number of years for retirement eligibility on active duty, they can retire at any age without a reduction in annuity. It will continue to be challenging to recruit and retain young people into the armed forces. These challenges are not lost on the full-time reserve technician workforce. In many ways it will be worse, because the Reserves typically only recruit full-time staff from among those already in the service. In other words, they have a smaller pool from which to draw. It is our responsibility to make sure the Guard and Reserves remain strong and vital, and one way to do this is to invest in their human capital. The legislation I am introducing today is important not only to our current military reserve technicians who may meet the new retirement eligibility, but also to those new prospects who are evaluating employment alternatives as they decide with whom to invest their future. Make it a priority today to strengthen our Guard and Reserves of the future.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, May 21 and Tuesday, May 22 I was unavoidably not able to be present for votes on Roll Call numbers 126 through 134. Had I been present, I would have voted: Rollcall 126: National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day, ``yea.'' Rollcall 127: H.R. 1185, Extension of Section 245(i) of the Immigration Act, ``yea''. Rollcall 128: Capps amendment to H.R. 1, ``yea''. Rollcall 129: Graves amendment to H.R. 1, ``yea''. Rollcall 130: Hoekstra amendment to H.R. 1, ``yea''. Rollcall 131: Dunn amendment to H.R. 1, ``yea''. Rollcall 132: Tiberi amendment to H.R. 1, ``no''. Rollcall 133: Vitter amendment to H.R. 1, ``yea''. Rollcall 134: Passage of H.R. 1831, Relief for Small Businesses Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, ``yea''.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise, kind of incredulous about the idea that this is now a policy. The policy is, if I understand it correctly, especially according to the gentleman from California who spoke a moment ago, the policy is that we are going to have a tax cut in order to pay our electric bill. Mr. Speaker, I suggest, and I am sure the gentleman who just spoke will be in favor of this, we want to cut out bureaucracy and the middle man. Why not give the money directly to the energy companies? Why not have a direct deposit at Exxon or a direct deposit at the oil production companies or the electric generators? The gentleman from California who just spoke, my good friend, let us do that. Cut out the middle man. Forget the fact that we owe $1.1 trillion to the Social Security fund. Forget the fact that we owe Medicare $229 billion, and that we owe the military retirees $162 billion. Forget about drawing down the debt. I thought that is what we were going to do. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues over here were the ones that helped convince us that getting rid of the deficit and paying down the debt is something that we needed to do. Let us put some rationality behind this. Let us pass the tax cut. Let us have a direct deposit at the oil companies, at the energy companies. Let us cut out the middle man and the bureaucracy. Let us cut out the American people.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I was unavoidably absent and I was unable to cast my vote on rollcall No. 105, the rule for H.R. 1646, the State Department Authorization bill. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, with the President making his remarks today on missile defense, I think we need to recognize unprecedented political challenges loom on the strategic horizon. Current U.S. defense force planning is set within an atmosphere of great uncertainty. Historic rivals of the United States, such as the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc nations, have either disintegrated altogether or lost much of their competitive influence. Regional state actors, particularly on the Asian continent, show signs of future ascendancy on the world political stage. Other nation states, some exhibiting anti-U.S. bent, continue to challenge American allies and interests around the world, even as U.S. peacekeeping and peacemaking commitments evolve. The very definition of American interests is in transition as varied threats emerge in the post-Cold War world. International corruption, organized crime, and the production, trade, and trafficking of illicit narcotics is on the rise. These transnational threats contribute to the instability of political systems abroad, the violation of U.S. borders, and often represent a threat to social conditions in the United States. The threat of terrorism, both state and non-state sponsored, has grown in significance and Americans have increasingly become targets for attackers abroad. According to a December 2000 unclassified Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) report, terrorist attacks against the United States, its forces, facilities, and interests overseas are expected to increase over the next decade. Additionally the report states, ``Between now and 2015 terrorist tactics will become increasingly sophisticated and designed to achieve mass casualities.'' This potential threat is of particular concern for the United States with its open borders, emphasis on local--and perhaps uncoordinated-- emergency responders, and a prevalent cultural respect for civil liberties, and, thus, freedom of movement and action. Antiterrorist measures must address all plausible attack scenarios, including the delivery of an explosive device by more traditional means, such as by ship, rail, foot, or automotive vehicle. The availability of advanced technologies has also reached a significant level of concern as Russia, China, and North Korea, continue to exhibit ambivalent attitudes towards nonproliferation agreements. The 2001 Report of the Secretary of Defense to the President and the Congress notes the spread of materials with potential applications to nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, and highlights the proliferation of advanced long-range delivery systems. Another study, the Quadrennial Defense Review 2001 Working Group by the National Defense University laments, and I quote, ``Given the diffusion of advanced military technologies and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, one could envision an adversary armed with longer-range missiles and cruise missiles, weapons of mass destruction, advanced integrated air defense systems, and/or sophisticated anti-ship mines and missiles by 2010, if not sooner.'' U.S. military forces, then--forward deployed to temper adversarial behavior and required to provide both a credible deterrence and an overwhelming response to aggression if needed--face new and multiple challenges, not the least of which is to consider anew its role in assisting with defense of national territory. Set within this context, U.S. strategists are challenged with questions about nuclear strategy and force posture, arms control regimes, and missile defense modernization options. Missile proliferation has introduced an immediate threat to American uniformed personnel stationed abroad, and brought to the fore the prospect of ballistic missile attack on the United States as a real possibility within the next 5 to 7 years. China, Russia, and North Korea each have well-armed missiles capable of striking parts or all of the United States, and other nations, such as Iran, may possess similar technology in the not too distant future. This new setting has led some to call for a new strategic synthesis and a doctrinal requirement to, in the words of Michael Krepon, and I quote, ``reduce the dangers from missiles and weapons of mass destruction in the uncertain period ahead.'' Still, the view of the threat from abroad should not create a threat from within. An effort must be made to avoid strategic decisions that might antagonize our international competitors and/or partners, leading them to adopt a posture even more belligerent in nature. Krepon suggests, and I quote, ``The net effect of missile deployments should be to reinforce reductions in nuclear forces, reassure allies, support nonproliferation partners, and reduce the salience of missiles and weapons of mass destruction.'' Thus, the threat to America should be viewed holistically. It should be viewed with an eye receptive to the benefits of negotiation, diplomacy, and arms reduction possibilities, mindful of adversarial intent. The possibility of a threat does not necessarily deem it likely. Whereas missile threats to the United States and allies indeed exist and are likely to increase, other threats also remain. America, therefore, should invest in a force structure commensurate with likely threats. Above all, consideration of missile defense systems must not acquire a 21st century Maginot Line mentality. Calls for nonpartisanship respecting an issue are generally rhetorical and strategic in nature as regards their political origin. Missile doctrine made manifest in congressional policy, however, cries out for just that approach. No other defense posture is as pregnant with controversy and potential for bitter political conflict. The costs of commitment alone set off warning bells throughout the budget spectrum. Discussion can rapidly descend into confrontation and accusation if we do not pledge to bring serious, sober consideration and resolution to the table. What is needed presently is the equivalent of a congressional deep breath. We need to remember the various missile launch scenarios are abstract evaluations and the solutions promulgated in response are visions, for the most part, still on paper and in the mind's eye. Missiles, offensive or defensive, are at best a technological answer to a military question, not a diplomatic answer to a question of negotiation. International diplomacy and national policy remain an art, not a science. Science is fixed and immutable in its consequence, while art, as Andy Warhol said, is what one can get away with. Congress must guard against allowing missile defense systems becoming the policy, allowing the technology, in effect, to develop its own psychology. There is gradually being created in the United States a burgeoning military and corporate apparatus dependent in large measure on missile defense to rationalize its existence. It is imperative, therefore, that the Congress assess the role of missile defense policy in the overall context of national security and economic stability. The issues are real. The responsibility is ours.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was unavoidably detained in Hawaii on official business during which two rollcall votes were taken. Had I been present I would have voted: Rollcall No. 85, Motion to Instruct Conferees on the FY 2002 Budget Resolution, ``Yes''. Rollcall No. 86, Motion to Suspend the Rules on HR 428 concerning the participation of Taiwan in the World Heath Organization, ``Yes''.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, for those who do not think about this every day when they get up, this debate may seem rather esoteric and a bit almost beside the point; but for those of our constituents who are concerned about this issue, let me tell my colleagues, they think about it every day. They think about it all the time. They think about it in terms that are very, very personal to them. I do not think that I have ever involved myself with a domestic issue that has had the same kind of impact personally, psychologically, and emotionally as this issue has had with my constituents. People that I have known personally in the islands for the better part of four decades, many of whom have not agreed with me philosophically, ideologically in terms of politics are united around this issue. And the fact that it may not provide every aspect, every element that they would like to see in terms of immediacy; the fact that they will have to come to grips with capital gains taxation that they might not otherwise have anticipated; and the fact that they understand that this bill is in a process of becoming that what passes today is unlikely to be the final answer, that some of the immediacy that is involved in the substitute that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and others have put together in good faith may become part of the equation. Those facts, yes, enter into it; but fundamentally, what they want is the passage of this bill, and they want to be able to see and say who is on their side on this. And I am afraid that our substitute, the amendment, as such, despite its good intentions, will not measure in that regard. The other aspect of this that is very, very important and what hit me so hard is that this is a jobs bill. We tend not to look at that aspect of it. Businesses which have to be sold in order to meet the estate tax burden involve dozens, sometimes hundreds of people whose jobs, whose welfare, whose obligations, whose responsibilities are put in jeopardy. I do not think we can do that. This is involved with families. This is involved in a way that people have a tremendous emotional commitment to, and I think as Democrats and Republicans we need to respond to it with an overwhelming vote in favor of the estate tax repeal.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleague, Representative Patsy Mink, to introduce a bill to reauthorize the Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act. The purpose of this legislation is to improve the health status of Native Hawaiians through the continuation of comprehensive health promotion and disease prevention. IT is intended to provide health education in Native Hawaiian communities and primary care health care services using traditional Native Hawaiian healers and health care providers trained in Western medicine. In areas where there is an underutilization of existing health care delivery systems that can provide culturally relevant health care services, this bill authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to contract with Native Hawaiian health care systems to provide care referral services to Native Hawaiian patients. This reauthorization is intended to assure the continuity of health care programs for Native Hawaiians under the authority of Public Law 100-579. As enacted in 1988, the Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act is premised upon the findings and recommendations of the Native Hawaiian Health Research Consortium report of December 1985 to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. The report clearly indicates that the underutilization of existing health care services by Native Hawaiian can be traced to the absence of culturally- relevant services. Additionally, the report reveals a general perception in the Native Hawaiian community that health care services based on concepts of Western medicine will not cure diseases afflicting Native Hawaiian people. The bill contains extensive findings on the current health status of Native Hawaiians including the incidence and mortality rates associated with various forms of cancer, diabetes, asthma, circulatory diseases, infectious disease and illness, and injuries. It also includes statistics on life expectancy, maternal and child health, births, teen pregnancies, fetal mortality, mental health, and education and training in the health professions. The Native Hawaiian population living in Hawaii consists of two groups: Hawaiians and part-Hawaiians, which are distinct in both age distributions and mortality rates. Hawaiians comprise less than 5 percent of the total Native Hawaiian population and are much older than the growing part-Hawaiian population. Overall, the Native Hawaiian death rate is 34 percent higher than the death rate for all races in the United States, but this composite masks great differences that exist between Hawaiians and part-Hawaiians. Hawaiians have a death rate 146 percent higher than the U.S. all-races rate. Part-Hawaiians also have a higher death rate, but only 17 percent greater than the U.S. as a whole. A comparison of age-adjusted death rates for Hawaiians and part-Hawaiians reveals that Hawaiians die at a rate 110 percent higher than part-Hawaiians, and this pattern is found in all but one of the 13 leading causes of deaths common to both groups. The health status of Native Hawaiians is far below that of other U.S. population groups. In a number of areas, the evidence is compelling that Native Hawaiians constitute a population group for which the morality rates associated with certain disease exceed that for other U.S. populations in alarming proportions. Native Hawaiians premise their high morality rates and incidence of disease upon the breakdown of the Hawaiian culture and belief systems, including traditional healing practices. That breakdown resulted from western settlement and the influx of western diseases to which the native people of the Hawaiian Islands lacked immunity. Further, Native Hawaiians perceive the high incidence of mental illness and emotional disorders in the Native Hawaiians population as evidence of the cultural isolation and alienation of the native peoples in a statewide population of which they now constitute only 20 percent. Settlement from both the east and the west brought new diseases which decimated the Native Hawaiian population, and it devalued their customs and traditions to the point of prohibiting their native tongue in schools and other public venues. The concepts embodied in this bill are the result of extensive work of Native Hawaiian health care professionals and others dedicated to improving the health of Native Hawaiians. Its purpose is to enable Native Hawaiians to achieve the healthful harmony of the self, or lokahi, with others and all of nature. For Native Hawaiians to function effectively as citizens and leaders in their own homeland, there must be a restoration of cultural traditions, integration of traditional healing methods in the health care delivery system, and a collective effort to restore to Native Hawaiians a sense of self esteem and self worth. The ultimate goal is to have this Native Hawaiian way of dealing with health eventually become an integral part of the State's health policy for both Native Hawaiian and Non-Hawaiians.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I want to particularly thank the chairman today for the opportunity to be here. Mr. Speaker, it is probably something that many of us tend to take for granted over time, that we have the opportunity to be on this floor and to sponsor bills such as the Goro Hokama Post Office Building bill, and in some respects could be seen by others as pro forma. I think, Mr. Speaker, we have learned, and I am sure the chairman has learned, that it is the obvious that we have to repeat to ourselves over and over again, because it is the obvious that sometimes we take most for granted and forget first. This, perhaps, Mr. Speaker, is one of those occasions, where we remind ourselves that we really, in fact, do have the high honor and privilege of serving the people of this Nation. While the issues may be weighty in many respects and a somber and sober attitude required with respect to the adjudication of these issues and the resolution of these issues, today I can tell my colleagues, this is an occasion of joy for the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) and myself, and I hope, by extension in some small way, for the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) as presiding officer, and for the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) today, to be here because we have, in fact, the opportunity to recognize, as my colleague indicated, a public servant, someone who has seen himself always as the humble servant of the people of Hawaii and, most particularly, the people of Lanai. As the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) indicated, the island of Lanai is a small island; small in population, small in size, known the world over as the Pineapple Island, and Goro Hokama is central to the history of this island, not only from the time that he spent as a young man before his service in the United States Army, but almost literally upon the time that he returned from the service to Lanai to take up his duties as a member of the ILWU in representing the working people of the island of Lanai. He was elected to public office. The people who knew him best, who knew him from the time he was a little boy, understood that in Goro Hokama, they had someone of extraordinary ability. That ability and insight, I might add, Mr. Speaker, was such that he encouraged people. He encouraged people to participate in the public life of Hawaii, and with statehood 41 years ago, the experience that he had with the county, the experience he had with my good and dear friend, the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), and in encouraging her, and this is not always possible. It is something we take for granted now, Mr. Speaker. It was not easy to be a member of a minority. It was not easy to be seen as someone who did not have control of the levers of power, to be able to continue to succeed, to encourage others, to participate in a way that gave others confidence in him, and Goro Hokama was the person who did that. Goro Hokama was someone who encouraged the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) to pursue her political career which has manifested itself in the marvelous record that she has here in the United States Congress. Goro Hokama was someone that encouraged a young kid from the east coast of the United States who had come all the way to Hawaii in the hopes of beginning another life with statehood as I did 41 years ago, not only encouraged me, but gave me the idea that it was what I had to contribute that counted. It was what was in my heart that counted. And when we have a man like Goro Hokama as a guiding light, as a mentor, as someone who can make clear the path for you, encouraging you all the way, it is something that is truly to be treasured. So my colleague and I come to the floor today with a sense that with the naming of the Goro Hokama Post Office Building, there is a conclusion to a life of public service, and I hope that his grandsons, Jordan and Trent, possibly are up at 5 o'clock in the morning, too, to see their grandfather honored. So, Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude my remarks by again thanking the chairman, not only for his consideration, but for giving us the opportunity to honor someone who truly deserves it, a great American, a great son of Hawaii, a true representative of everything that is great and good about the island of Lanai, Goro Hokama.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I was unavoidably absent when three rollcall votes were taken. Had I been present, I would have voted: Rollcall No. 6, H. Con. Res. 14, Permission for use of the Capitol Rotunda for a Ceremony as a part of the remembrance of victims of the Holocaust, ``yes''; Rollcall No. 7, H. Con. Res. 15, Expressing sympathy for the victims of the earthquake in India on January 26, 2001, ``yes''; and Rollcall No. 8, Approval of the Journal, ``yes.''

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, October 29, 2000, I was unavoidably detained and I was unable to vote on three rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: Rollcall 574-- Approval of the Journal--``yes''; rollcall 575--One Day Continuing Resolution--``yes''; and rollcall 576--Pallone Motion to Instruct Labor-HHS Appropriations Conferees--``yes.'' On Monday, October 30, I was unavoidably detained and I was unable to vote on the seven rollcall votes taken. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: Rollcall 583--Technical Corrections to Minimum Wage Legislation/St. Croix Island--``yes''; rollcall 582--Previous Question--``no''; rollcall 581--Rule to Allow Additional Continuing Resolutions--``yes''; rollcall 580--Previous Question--``no''; rollcall 579--Hour of Meeting October 31 at 6:00 p.m.--``no''; rollcall 578-- Passage One Day Continuing Resolution--``yes''; and rollcall 577-- Approval of the Journal--``yes.''

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, October 29, 2000 I was unavoidably detained from presence in the House. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: Rollcall 574, Approval of the Journal--Yes. Rollcall 575, One Day Continuing Resolution--Yes. Rollcall 576, Pallone Motion to Instruct Labor-HHS Appropriations Conferees--Yes.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, which is vital for the health and future of America's coral reef resources. The estimated 4,200,000 acres of U.S. coral reef resources in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) are at high risk and in dire need of enhanced protection, research and management. This bill creates a much needed comprehensive mechanism to protect the Nation's coral reefs, as well as support the activities of the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force and other stakeholders. Coral reefs truly are the ``rainforests of the oceans.'' There have been many concerted efforts by the Administration, Congress, states, and local communities to protect and safely manage corals. Since the Coral Reef Task Force released its National Action Plan in March, Federal, state, territorial, and local partners have moved forward to improve our protection of these valuable and fragile areas through effective stewardship of coral reefs. This bill would provide needed authorization for coral conservation project funding and enhance needed partnerships to protect reefs. Designing an effective bill has taken ten long years, and I am pleased to see the efforts of Chairman Young, Mr. Miller, Mr. Saxton, Mr. Faleomavaega, and our Senate colleagues paying off in such grand fashion for a true success for our environment and marine resources.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I was unavoidably detained and I was not able to vote on rollcall votes Nos. 564 to 569. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: rollcall No. 564, ``yes''; rollcall No. 564, ``yes''; rollcall No. 564, ``yes''; rollcall No. 565, ``yes''; rollcall No. 566, ``yes''; rollcall No. 567, ``yes''; rollcall No. 568, ``yes''; rollcall No. 569, ``yes''.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this request of the body. Mr. Speaker, because of the activities of some other committees in this Congress, the investigation power, the oversight responsibilities of the Congress and its committees has come into some disrepute. There is no question about that. And anytime you do oversight and investigation, you are bound to have the kinds of emotional responses such as we just heard, because there are very real issues involved, fraud, deception, misrepresentation, et cetera. I am sorry to say that the character and the tenor of some of the investigation activities has resulted in, I will not say contempt for but certainly suspicion of any activities by any congressional committee with respect to its investigation and oversight responsibilities. This goes all the way back to the time of the un- American activities and un-American activities committees, all their notorious investigations which had as their object I think by general conclusion of history at least the humiliation of other people and the pursuit of partisan purposes which had very little to do with the ostensible investigatory objectives which were announced when these investigations and inquiries began. But, Mr. Speaker, I have concluded that this particular investigation and the manner in which it has been conducted, regardless of whether it should have been broader or should have been deeper, gone into other things, those are legitimate questions that could be raised and the chairman can answer it or not answer it as he will. But with respect to the activities that are cited in this resolution, I think we have to uphold not only the right but the obligation of the committee to pursue it. There is enough information here to convince me that a serious breach of public trust may have occurred. The grand jury must be given the tools it needs follow this investigation wherever it leads, and this report is one of those tools. Congress has an oversight responsibility, no matter which party is in the majority. If I refuse to support this report, this resolution, I believe I am undermining the authority of future Congresses, including ones with Democratic majorities, to exercise their oversight responsibilities. I cannot answer for other people's motives. If you want to insist that the Republicans are doing something for partisan reasons or the Democrats are responding for partisan reasons, you can do it. I cannot be responsible for those kinds of things. I can only answer for my own. I have seven pages of bills that I have been associated with, including committee responsibility in the area of minerals and oil and royalties where I think I can stand on my record. So I want to refer then to what I think are the compelling reasons here. The power of future Congresses to exercise oversight of Federal agencies and to uncover waste, fraud and abuse by using its constitutional authority to compel testimony and evidence will be severely harmed if the report is not adopted. This Congress must pursue this matter and seek sanctions for the refusal to answer questions about it. And, finally, the U.S. Attorney may not act unless the House passes this resolution. That action cannot be deferred because the underlying subpoenas expire with the 106th Congress, so a Federal grand jury impaneled in the District of Columbia needs to receive it. Voting for the report does not constitute a verdict or an indictment. The report if passed will allow the grand jury to do its work.