Neil Abercrombie

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill to clarify the political relationship between Native Hawaiians and the United States. For years, Congress has legislated on behalf of Native Hawaiians as the aboriginal, indigenous, native peoples of Hawaii. This measure clarifies that political relationship and provides a process for Native Hawaiians to form a Native Hawaiian governing body to engage in a government-to-government relationship with the United States. The United States has declared a special responsibility for the welfare of the Native peoples of the United States, including Native Hawaiians. This relationship has been acknowledged by the United States since the inception of Hawaii's status as a territory. This relationship was most explicitly affirmed by the enactment of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920, which set aside 200,000 acres of land in Hawaii for homesteading by Native Hawaiians. Legislative history clearly shows that in addressing this situation, Congress based this action and subsequent legislation on the constitutional precedent in programs enacted for the benefit of American Indians. Since Hawaii's admission into the Union, Congress has continued to legislate on behalf of Native Hawaiians as indigenous peoples. Native Hawaiians have been included as Native Americans in a number of federal statutes which have addressed the conditions of Native Hawaiians. P.L. 103-150, the Apology Resolution, extended an apology on behalf of the United States to the Native people of Hawaii for the United States' role in the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. The Apology Resolution also expressed the commitment of Congress and the President to acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii and to support reconciliation efforts between the United States and Native Hawaiians. The legislation I am introducing today is important not only to Native Hawaiians, but to all people in Hawaii. This measure provides the process to begin resolving many longstanding issues facing Hawaii's indigenous peoples and the State of Hawaii. In addressing these issues, we have begun a process of healing, a process of reconciliation not only with the United States but within the State of Hawaii. The essence of Hawaii is characterized not by the beauty of its islands, but by the beauty of its people. The State of Hawaii has recognized, acknowledged and acted upon the need to preserve the culture, tradition, language and heritage of Hawaii's indigenous peoples. This measure furthers these actions. The clarification of the political relationship between Native Hawaiians and the United States is one that has been long in coming and is well-deserved. Unfortunately, the history and the timing of Hawaii's relationship to the United States has not provided the appropriate structure for a government-to-government relationship between Hawaii's indigenous native peoples and the United States. The time has come to correct this injustice.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, July 18, 2000, I was granted a leave of absence for official business which I was undertaking in my district in Hawaii. Four recorded votes were taken yesterday. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: rollcall 401, H. Res. 534, Security at Los Alamos, ``yes''; rollcall 402, H. Con. Res. 319, Latvia 10th Independence Anniversary, ``yes''; rollcall 403, H. Res. 531, Condemn 1994 Bombing of Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires, ``yes''; rollcall 404, H.R. 3125, Internet Gambling Prohibition Act, ``no.''

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker. On June 30, 2000, Litton Ingalls Shipbuilding cut steel on the first cruise ship to be built in the United States in nearly 45 years. This historic event marks another milestone in the U.S.-flag Cruise Ship Pilot Project, enacted as part of the MARITECH program in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 1998, and represents America's re-entry into the burgeoning cruise travel market. People have been saying for years that America cannot build ships competitively on the world market. The construction of the two cruise ships for American Classic Voyages Co. at Litton Ingalls Shipbuilding demonstrates that America can build ships competitively on the world market. At a fixed price of $440 million a piece, the ships are only slightly above the price being charged for cruise ship construction in European yards, where nearly all new cruise ships are built. The price of the America ships would be even more competitive in the world market if the worldwide ship construction subsidies were eliminated. The cruise industry is one of the fastest growing segments of the travel and leisure industry, growing at a pace of about nine percent annually. Loopholes in U.S. laws and regulations have essentially ceded this burgeoning vacation business to companies operating cruise ships under flags-of-convenience. With the exception of the single U.S.-flag oceangoing cruise ship operating in my State of Hawaii, there are no U.S.-flag oceangoing passenger liners. The U.S.-flag Cruise Ship Pilot Project, enacted to help jumpstart the U.S.-flag cruise industry, will change that and will give Americans a foothold in a cruise industry now dominated by foreign cruise lines. The revitalization of the American cruise business is vital to our economic and national security. The Department of Defense has stated that the Pilot Project alone could save it ``tens to hundreds of millions of dollars'' in shipyard overhead costs. It also helps to sustain the shipbuilding industrial base of the U.S., which is vital to national security. The thousands of jobs created will help maintain the manpower necessary for building and crewing ships in times of national emergencies. The Department of Defense has also expressed an interest in utilizing the hull designs for cruise ships for command and control vessels in the future. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see a resurgence of interest in the U.S.-flag cruise business. At least three companies have publicly expressed a desire to build U.S.-flag cruise ships in a U.S. shipyard for the American cruise market. Future construction in this area will improve the worldwide competitiveness of U.S. shipyards, and Litton Ingalls Shipbuilding is leading the way for America's re-entry into this growing marketplace. These efforts are important to the future of the U.S. shipbuilding industry, a U.S.-flag maritime industry, and our national security. I am looking forward to the day when American Classic begins operating these new ships in Hawaii, bringing with it thousands of seagoing and shoreside jobs. Projects such as this will help renew America's leadership in commercial ship construction and in the cruise industry. I hope that Congress will do all it can to help revitalize this vital American industry.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman Young, Ranking Member Obey, Subcommittee Chairman Regula, Ranking Member Serrano, and the other Members of the Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary Appropriations Subcommittee and Appropriations Committee for their obvious hard efforts in producing H.R. 4690. I have strong reservations about the funding cuts that the bill imposes on the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. The bill funds NOAA at a level 61 percent below the Administration's request and could result in the elimination of 1,000 NOAA jobs. If this happens, it will have a devastating effect on the critical research, fisheries management, water quality, and community-based educational programs which are absolutely necessary to our country's vitality and continued strength. Mr. Chairman, this country is witnessing the largest federal government surplus in history. I believe that part of this money should be returned to the American people. I believe that we should be investing part of the surplus in America's future. NOAA plays an essential role in the lives of all Americans. From issuing weather forecasts to managing our nation's ocean and living marine resources, NOAA contributes significantly to the nation's economic and environmental health. Nearly one out of every six jobs is marine- related and one-third of our Gross Domestic Product is produced in ocean and coastal areas. I am particularly upset that the Committee has chosen to cut all funding, $16 million requested by the Administration, for coral reef research and conservation efforts. 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 release by the Coral Reef Task Force of its National Action Plan in March, NOAA and its Federal, state, territorial, and local partners have moved forward to improve our protection of these valuable and fragile areas. I am presently involved in bipartisan legislation that will contribute to the effective stewardship of coral reefs. NOAA is an important partner in the process, since many corals fall within its purview. All of the efforts supported by NOAA will be terminated at the proposed funding level, and threaten to harm the ecological and economic stability in our nation's waters where corals reside. Mr. Chairman, some may ask whether we can afford, or even need, all the services that NOAA provides. However, at a time when there is an even greater need for accurate weather information to protect the lives of our people and the well-being of our agricultural communities, at a time when our fisheries are at risk, at a time when development is booming in coastal communities, and at a time when we have the additional financial resources, I ask, how can we afford not to provide the Administration's request for NOAA, which has the capability to provide the expertise which is so vitally important to the continued stewardship of our marine resources? NOAA has been a valuable federal partner in contributing to our nation's economic potency by providing the knowledge required for effective stewardship of our coastal resources. Investing in NOAA will ensure we can continue to safely conserve our coastal and oceanic resources for generations to come. I sincerely hope that these concerns will receive consideration when the House goes to conference with the Senate on H.R. 4690.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I intend to say things that have not been said to this point. I think it is very important, we hear all the crocodile tears for consumers. I am speaking as someone from Hawaii associated in people's minds, people who are listening to us and people back in their offices, associated in people's minds with sugar. Well, the policies that we have pursued in this country supposedly about fair and impartial and open trade have destroyed sugar in Hawaii. My colleagues will not have to worry about it. The gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) has already come down here and said that we are not going to be affected by this. I am here to say the same thing. Sugar is effectively destroyed in Hawaii. I hope everybody is happy with that. Because what we have all around the world is wage slavery and child labor producing the sugar. Now, if that is determined to be and defined as free and open markets and free markets seeking their profit level as well as their price, then one can define it that way, but I do not. If one wants to define it as having other countries environment be degraded while ours is somehow upraised in the process and call that fair, one can do that. The fact of the matter is that child labor, what amounts in my mind to slavery, is used all over the world to produce its sugar. Yes, there are subsidies and oligarchy existing in the rest of the world where sugar is concerned that ought to make us weep with shame to think that we would import that sugar and say that that is some net advantage to the consumer. It has been said already, and I want to emphasize that, that none of this imported sugar, where there are no health standards, where there are no environmental standards, where there are no labor standards, none of that sugar that is imported at that price is going to be reflected in any product that is sold in this country that will be taken as profit. Maybe people will applaud that. If my colleagues feel that it is a good idea to make a lot of money off of other people's pain and suffering, then I suppose that that is something that my colleagues would welcome. I do not. I think we set standards. The great irony, Mr. Chairman, for me, coming from Hawaii, is that the people who would lose their jobs, not these rich people in Florida, if my colleagues do not like these rich people in Florida or they disapprove of the way they live, then find a way to tax them or put them out of business or do whatever; but do not tell me that somebody working on a plantation in Kauai with his or her hands, working in the fields all their lives by the sweat of their brow, is on the same plane and should be treated the same as someone who my colleagues think is getting undeserved riches from what happens with a program that we passed. Fix the program. Do not attack the people who are the victims of my colleagues' self-righteousness. If my colleagues want to come down on this floor and attack sugar, then they are attacking people who are working for a living and who came from countries who are now being subsidized, who are dumping sugar into this country, whose ancestors came here looking for just an opportunity for justice, looking for just an opportunity for equity, looking for just an opportunity to earn a decent and fair living. Those people are being put out of business. Those people are losing their jobs because of the programs that my colleagues support to import wage slave sugar in this country. As long as I am on this floor, and as long as I am in this country, and I am in this Congress, believe me, I am going to be standing up for working people against those who would take advantage of them. Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Mrs. Mink's amendment supporting additional funding for the National Marine Fisheries Service. It is her intent that this funding be used to support the Hawaii Longline Fisheries Observer Program, a threatened program absolutely essential to fisheries in the Pacific. The observer program is used to ensure that the longlining industry in the Pacific is not capturing, through incidental take, rare and endangered species such as leatherback sea turtles. NMFS has stated that it is mandatory that the observer program be in place to monitor the longline fishery, yet has cut this program from 13 to 2 people because of budget shortfalls. A proposed lawsuit threatens to close down the fishery entirely without observers, and we can not allow this to happen. We need to get the observers back on the boats where they belong! The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council has been supportive of the observer program as it provides important data needed for effective management. It is my understanding that the proposed budget includes funding for other observer programs, but that the Hawaiian longline observer program is sorely neglected. I urge support of this program by Congress in order to correct this oversight as a matter of fairness to fisheries in the Pacific.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my distinguished colleague's amendment. Mr. Filner has shown a great sense of justice by offering this amendment which provides funds for health benefits for Filipino World War II veterans. It also increases service-connected disability benefits to those vets who are living in the United States. Both these provisions will greatly improve the lives of many Filipino veterans who loyally fought with the United States in World War II. The early months of World War II were a dark time for the United States. Our armed forces were on the defensive everywhere--nowhere more so than in the Philippines. Food, medical supplies and ammunition ran short. With sea and air links severed, there was no hope of resupply, reinforcement or escape. In that desperate hour, approximately 200,000 Filipino soldiers under the command of General Douglas MacArthur displayed exemplary loyalty and courage in the defense of the Philippines. They fought in every major battle, including the final defense of Bataan and Corregidor. They suffered every privation. They endured every danger. They shed their blood as readily as their American comrades in arms. Those sacrifices continued even after U.S. forces were driven from the Philippines in 1942. Thousands of courageous Filipinos took up arms as guerillas and fought enormous odds. Their bravery earned the admiration of freedom loving people throughout the world. They provided valuable intelligence to General MacArthur's forces in the Southwest Pacific, rescued downed American airmen, and diverted powerful enemy forces from deployment elsewhere. Through three long, terrible years these Filipino guerilla soldiers kept faith with America. Now it is time for America to keep faith with Filipino veterans. Despite their equal service, our Filipino veterans do not enjoy equal benefits with the American troops with whom they fought side by side. An estimated 60,000 to 80,000 surviving Filipino veterans are barred from the full range and extent of veterans benefits available to Americans who served against the same enemy, in the same battles, at the same time. This violates the fundamental concept of fairness, especially for those who put their lives on the line for our country. Because America stands for justice for all, we cannot turn our backs on these veterans who have been denied their due for so long. We owe equal treatment to all who fought under our flag. America is a great nation, and we must act now to right a great wrong. We can do so by extending recognition for incomparable bravery and loyalty. It is time to offer justice to veterans in need and redeem a debt that has gone unpaid for far too long. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I was unavoidably detained from presence on the House floor as a result of meetings at the White House with respect to the Medal of Honor winners. Had I been present, I would have voted on amendments to H.R. 4635, Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001: on rollcall number 300, yes; rollcall number 301, yes; and rollcall number 302, yes.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2722, which is before the House today authorizing the Medal of Honor for James K. Okubo, Ed. W. Freeman, and Andrew J. Smith for the heroic actions as outlined by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley). These three individuals are highly deserving of this award for their conspicuous bravery under fire in the defense of our great nation. I am particularly pleased that this legislation is the culmination of an exhaustive effort to recognize James K. Okubo for his valor during World War II. Mr. Okubo, a Japanese-American, originally from Washington State, like hundreds of others was sent to an internment camp in California at the outset of World War II. Despite being subjected to this shameful treatment, he never wavered in his patriotism and dedication to this country. James Okubo entered the Army and was assigned as a medic in the legendary 442nd Regimental Combat Team. In October of 1944, Technician Okubo and his unit were tasked with the rescue of the ``Lost Battalion'' from Texas. The ``Lost Battalion'' was surrounded by German forces and threatened with annihilation. During a 2 day period of heavy machine gun fire, mortar and artillery fire, Technician Okubo provided first-aid to 25 fellow soldiers wounded in the battle. On two occasions he crawled within yards of enemy lines to evacuate wounded comrades. Later during the battle he ran 75 yards through withering machine gun fire directed at him and evacuated a seriously wounded crewman from a burning tank. For his heroism displayed during these intense combat situations, Technician Okubo was recommended for the Medal of Honor. I think it is important to note that, Mr. Speaker, he was recommended at that time for the Medal of Honor. However, the award was downgraded with the explanation that since he was a medic, Technician Okubo was not eligible for any award higher than the Silver Star. Sadly, Mr. Okubo passed away in 1967 without ever receiving the proper recognition he rightly deserves. However, we now have the opportunity to correct this injustice. Mr. Okubo's case has recently been reviewed, as the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) indicated, by the Department of the Army under Section 1130 of Title X. After a thorough review of the facts of the case, the Army determined that Mr. Okubo in fact deserves to be awarded the Medal of Honor recommended for him for his valor during World War II. On June 21, the President will be recognizing 12 members of Mr. Okubo's former unit, the 442nd Regimental Combat Team. These individuals have also earned the Nation's highest award, the Medal of Honor. I strongly urge the House to join our colleagues in the Senate and pass S. 2722, so that James K. Okubo can be honored with his comrades on this momentous occasion. Mr. Speaker, may I conclude and thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) again personally on this floor for not only his interest, but his dedication, and thank in particular Mike Higgins and Phil Grone, Ashley Godwin and Deborah Watta for making it possible for the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) and myself to appear on the floor in such an expeditious manner. They have done a terrific job with this, Mr. Speaker, and I am very grateful. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), all the members of the committees that have looked at this issue have decided that justice and equity resides with this appropriation. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) has been at odds with the trustees of the Bishop Estate for some 6 years now. Those trustees are no longer in place. The argument that he has had with the Bishop Estate no longer applies. Not one single penny, as he well knows, goes to the Bishop Estate. Why the gentleman from Ohio has this obsession to come to Hawaii, why he has the time to leave his district in Ohio and try to come to the floor of this House to act on behalf of Hawaiian children, I do not know. But I do know that his characterization to my colleagues is something that I take great offense at, because not one penny for these children is going to either those trustees or into that estate. The people who are handling the funds that my colleagues have put forward in this bill are the University of Hawaii at Hilo, the Leeward Community College, the Maui Community College, the Kauai Community College, the Hawaii Community College, and four Hawaiian nonprofit organizations, none of whom have anything to do with the Bishop Estate. Now, if my colleagues want to make this into a Republican versus Democratic issue, I most emphatically plead with them, do not do this. This is an educational issue that everyone in every district here can relate to on the basis of what is good for the children of one's district. This is not a partisan issue unless the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) is able to make it that and unless he is able to convince my colleagues against the evidence that this has something to do with the estate with which he has had an argument in the past. Every issue raised by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) with respect to the estate has been addressed. Every single issue now is moot. So I plead with all the Members, Democrat or Republican here, to trust the judgment in this instance of Democrats and Republicans alike, leaders on both sides, and a plea from me and the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) that my colleagues allow us, as we do for any Member in this House, to trust us as we trust them to address the particular circumstances in their districts that require congressional attention. I ask the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) not to make this an issue that would divide this House along partisan lines and to recognize that his arguments have been met, his arguments have been addressed. native hawaiian education assessment project Kamehameha Schools assists with the development of the needs assessment and targets programming to these needs. From the 1999 report, the most severe needs continue to be school readiness, basic skills, high school completion, and college enrollment and completion. Efforts to address these needs must begin with the very young, and it must integrate the language, culture, and values of the Native Hawaiian people. status of kamehameha schools In May 1999, the courts appointed a new Board of Trustees for the Bishop Estate. The interim trustees have moved swiftly to approve new policies and initiatives which have already changed the direction of Kam Schools in very constructive ways. The Board has held many town meetings to undertake strategic planning with all stakeholders. The direction of Kam Schools for the next 10 or 15 years will spend more on education and try to reach more Hawaiians and form more community partnerships. Another major change--giving the Hawaiian community more of a say in how the trust is run--has already begun with the strategic planning process. The draft was formed from more than 3,000 comments and suggestions the estate has solicited from the public since August. Kam Schools currently serves 961 preschool age children, 1,000 elementary school students on three islands, and 2,482 students attending high school on Oahu. They plan to increase the education spending from $100 million annually to $159 million in the next budget. Since May 1999, the following changes have occurred: Reorganized the Education Group, so all instructional and support programs report directly to the President; Began leveraging of Kamehameha's resources through partnerships to expand programs; Developed a K-3 reading program with DOE for DOE classrooms; Expanded Pre-schools for three-year olds Approved parenting program focusing on infants and toddlers. native hawaiian education act objectives The NHEA was enacted in 1988. Its objective is to raise the educational status of Native Hawaiians (whose needs are documented below) through the provision of supplemental programs and services for curriculum development, pre-school education, gifted and talented programs, special education initiatives, and the provision of higher education. The Act was amended in 1994 and expanded to include the establishment of community-based learning center, a curriculum development and teacher training component, and the establishment of a statewide Native Hawaiian Education Council and individual island councils. native hawaiian education act--seven sections (Sec. 9204) Native Hawaiian Education Council and Island Councils (Sec. 9205) Native Hawaiian Family-Based Education Centers (Sec. 9206) Native Hawaiian Higher Education Program (Sec. 9207) Native Hawaiian Gifted and Talented Program (Sec. 9208) Native Hawaiian Special Education Program (Sec. 9209) Native Hawaiian Curriculum Development, Teacher Training, and Recruitment Program (Sec. 9210) Native Hawaiian Community-Based Education Learning Centers nhea programs administered by kamehameha schools (Other grantees include the University of Hawaii at Hilo, Leeward Community College, Maui Community College, Kauai Community College, Hawaii Community College, Pihana Na Mamo, Alu Like, Inc., Pulama I Na Keiki, Aha Punana Leo) (1) Native Hawaiian Higher Education Program $1.036 million program funding--last year served 91 students. provide financial assistance and direction to Native Hawaiian students seeking postsecondary education--also requires a community service commitment (2) Kamehameha Talent Search $303,201 program funding--competitively granted--last year served 800 public schools students assist students who may be first in family to graduate from a secondary school to enroll in postsecondary educational programs safe and drug free schools native hawaiian set aside administered by kam schools $882,000 program funding--last year served 12,369 individuals establish Safe and Drug Free Schools to reduce violence and substance abuse rep. boehner previous arguments During the October 1999 markup of a section of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization, Representative Boehner offered his amendment to repeal the program. He stated: His comments would focus on Bishop Estate, its mission, its history of scandal, its budget, and potential for success with the recent reforms He said there are 15,000 Native Hawaiian children in Hawaii--Patsy corrected him with Census data in her testimony, stating that there are actually 47,282. He said Bishop Estate was worth $10 billion and they own 10% of Goldman Sachs, numerous Hawaii hotels, Las Vegas casinos, and shopping centers. Kamehameha Schools budget data reflects a net worth closer to $5 billion. He said that the former trustees were involved in kickback schemes, mail fraud, drug use, and improper credit card use, but their biggest fault was their $1 million annual compensation. He also mentioned the continuing probe of the estate's activities by the IRS and the State courts. He said that there are 3,200 students in Kamehameha Schools and that only one-eighth of those that apply are accepted. Patsy corrected him that there are actually 5,000 children attending Kam Schools--my statistics show that the number is 4,444 kids. He also made a point that the Estate should try using their interest income on educating Native Hawaiian children. That would raise the amount they spend by $400 million annually.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the Army for 225 years of service to our Nation, and I would like to have it recorded that I would like to join in with my chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), with his words. I thought they were very eloquent and to the point, and I am happy indeed to be able to associate myself with them. The United States Army created the year before the Declaration of Independence was signed, has for over 200 years courageously fought this Nation's wars and ensured peace and prosperity. The sacrifices of our men and women in uniform have brought freedom, not just for our country, but also for many others throughout the world. Particularly, in my own State of Hawaii, the Army has a proud history. On December 7, 1941, the soldiers of the 25 Infantry Division had the distinction of being the first Army soldiers to see combat in World War II when they fired on Japanese aircraft strafing Schofield Barracks during the attack on Pearl Harbor. After the attack, the 25th quickly set up its defensive positions to protect Honolulu and Pearl Harbor against possible Japanese attack. I must also mention the heroism during World War II of the legendary 442nd Regimental Combat Team and the 100th Infantry Battalion. Comprised of Asian-Americans, these two units performed with great valor and courage during the Europe campaign. Already, two of the most highly decorated units in the Army, the bravery of these soldiers will again be recognized when President Clinton on June 21 awards 19 medals of honor later this month for their courage during World War II. While the Army can justifiably be proud of its history, it is also fearlessly looking to the future. The Army is demonstrating remarkable flexibility by transforming itself in a new fighting force that will be able to win on the battlefield tomorrow, whether that means urban combat in remote parts of the world or peacekeeping in a war-ravaged country. The capability the Army provides continues to be an important and integral part of our ability to ensure the peace and security of our Nation. But the commitment of our military personnel does not come without peril and price. Duty often calls for prolonged periods away from family and home. Today, Mr. Speaker, we recognize the sacrifice of those whose dedication and devotion to duty ensure the blessings of freedom every day.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, for 1 minute, can we just set aside all of this rhetorical, divisive language about left and right and who wants to stiff-arm 2 percent or 98 percent. That is not what this is about. The whole basis of this law has changed. We have to recognize that there are middle-income businesses, small businesses all throughout this country that would benefit from a change; and we all know that there is an objection with respect to whether or not the megawealthy may or may not be able to have more advantages than they have right now. This is the first step in a legislative process, and we can be thankful to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) and the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) and to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), who are excellent legislators. Everyone knows that. They will put together a package that in the end is going to achieve tax equity and fairness for the overwhelming majority of Americans who deserve it, that is going to help preserve jobs and that is going to see to it that the small businesses throughout this country and the jobs that they create are going to be preserved and protected. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 8. it is pro-jobs and pro-tax fairness, and the House should pass the bill by a wide majority. As many of you know, I have been a long time supporter of working people and their interests. It is from those perspectives that I come here today to support H.R. 8 and urge the reform of the federal estate tax law. A permanent federal estate tax was first enacted in 1916. there was clearly a revenue raising need as a result of the U.S. entering World War I. But there were also philosophical and political motives in that great fortunes had been amassed during the industrial revolution, and there was felt to be a progressive public policy objective of stopping the perpetuation and transmission of the great control that inherently accompanied vast wealth and estates. At the time, there was compelling and legitimate concern that vast fortunes, estates and trust were limiting access to capital by the emerging middle-class entrepreneurs. We are now, however, in the 21st Century. Our economy, society and means of production have radically changed. We are no longer primarily an agrarian economy, and in many ways we may be nearing the end of heavy industry phase of our economic development. The outdated laws governing industry, commerce and society of the early 20th Century must be changed to reflect the realities of the year 2000 and beyond. Capital remains a key component of business formulation and development. It is not, however, being concentrated by entities subject to the estate tax as in 1916. Irrelevant and antiquated 19th and early 20th Century laws may be a hindrance to how our society now functions. Federal estate and gift tax law fits that category. My perspective on the issue is that current law diminishes the capability of small businesses, and the jobs associated with them, to continue after the death of an owner or owners. Some studies (Heritage Foundation) have indicated that as many as 145,000 additional new jobs could be created by repeal of the estate tax law. As much as $11.0 billion in additional economic output could result. The preservation and expansion of smaller, family businesses will protect jobs, and generate and expand the number of new jobs. For example, I represent the State of Hawaii, a state dominated by small businesses. Plantation agriculture has virtually ended and with the demise and economic dislocation associated with economic change, we are working hard to diversify Hawaii agriculture. This means many more smaller scale farmers growing specialty and niche crops instead of millions of tons of sugar. The middle class in Hawaii has developed from small business origins, and we now have great hope that a new generation of entrepreneurs will help sustain the economy through the new farming opportunities available for the first time in generations. I want to help preserve and develop those elements in Hawaii and in the American economy and society that generate millions of jobs. Regarding tax fairness, an equally compelling case is made that the wealthiest do not pay their fair share of estate taxes. The Tax Code has deliberately been riddled with exemptions and exceptions that are ruthlessly and thoroughly exploited by tax attorneys specializing in the preservation of inherited wealth. There is an entire body of tax law devoted to estate and gift tax avoidance and minimalization. Tax attorneys, I assure you, are talented and hard-working. The result is the majority of estates paying estate taxes are valued at $5.0 million and less. These are not the Rockefellers, Vanderbilts, Carnegies and J.P. Morgan robber barons the 1916 law was enacted to curb. Huge fortunes have for generations been sheltered with sophisticated, complex tax machinations. It is family farm and small businesses owners who are being penalized when trying to pass down assets to new generations to keep middle-class businesses in operation and generating employment. I can assure you I know of no small businesses in Kaneohe, Makiki, Waianae or Mililani, Hawaii that resort to multi-generation skipping trusts in order to keep a bakery or a delivery service in operation. Lastly, there is a human element in this debate that must be noted. One of my constituents, Steve Lee, is an estate attorney and planner in Honolulu. Mr. Lee's father inherited a few apartments from his parents some time ago. Mr. Lee's grandparents worked hard for years, acquiring the apartments as a means of assuring retirement income. Now his father is spending hours trying to figure our how to keep the property intact to pass it along to Mr. Lee and his brother. The Lees are middle-income in Hawaii. The value of real property acquired years ago, however, has been greatly inflated and the Lee brothers will face the need to liquidate at least part of the property in order to pay estate taxes in 9 months. The Lees justifiably feel they are being penalized for having kept their property intact within their family. Mr. Speaker, our current estate tax fails to meet the goals we expect. It is overly complex to the point of being arcane, the burden on those upon whom it falls is unfair and inefficient. Passing H.R. 8 today is the first major step. As we move through the legislative process, however, we will also seriously consider proposals that would provide interim, transitional relief. We will seriously consider any inequities that total elimination might engender. We will address Presidential objections. We can forge a bill acceptable to all who want tax equity. Consequently, I look on H.R. 8 as both tax fairness, and pro-jobs and I am pleased to be associated with John Tanner, Jennifer Dunn, Bill Archer, Eva Clayton and others in helping move estate tax reform legislation through Congress. I urge the House to pass the bill, and bring more fairness to the Tax Code.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. McCarthy from New York joins me today in introducing a bill to provide estate tax relief for closely held, family-owned businesses. Both Mrs. McCarthy and I support repeal of the estate tax and we have co-sponsored legislation in this Congress, H.R. 8, to effect repeal. The Ways and Means Committee will soon mark up H.R. 8 and report the measure for floor action. The estate tax threatens the survival of family businesses. Mrs. McCarthy has heard this in her Small Business Committee, just as I have heard from my constituents. Economists and tax experts confirm that the estate tax creates a true impediment in passing the family business to the next generation. The Congressional Budget Resolution, however, prevents an immediate repeal of the estate tax, and the anticipated committee recommendation will provide rate reduction with a gradual, extended phase down of the tax. I support that recommendation as do many of my colleagues. But family-owned businesses need immediate relief if they are to survive as family enterprises. Any business owner who dies during that phase-down period, will face the problem of having to sell the business to pay the tax. Active, family-owned businesses are inherently illiquid. The owners have invested most, if not all, of their assets in the business. Where a business constitutes the major part of a person's estate, the estate must sell off the business assets, or in many cases the business itself, to pay the federal estate tax within 9 months of the owner's death. Now, sale of the business or sale of the business assets is hard to complete within 9 months. The seller is not going to get the full value of the property in a forced sale. Instead of this losing proposition, an aging parent while still living will often sell the family business even though the children want to retain the enterprise. Even the tax scholars, who argue in favor of the estate tax, agree that family businesses face a true hardship to raise cash for the estate tax. They recommend that family businesses should have an extended period to pay off the tax so that the business will not have to be sold. Trying to deal with this problem, Congress in 1958 and again in 1976 enacted the deferral and installment payment provisions in current law. Under section 6166 of the tax code, an executor of an estate can elect to defer payment of the federal estate tax for 4 years and pay the tax in annual installments over the next 10 years. The decedent's estate must pay the Treasury a discounted rate of interest on the amount of deferred tax outstanding. The 4-year deferral and 10-year installment payment apply as to the estate tax on a closely held business. This relief covers ownership of a sole proprietorship, a corporation, or a partnership. But the relief is restricted under an obsolete definition of eligibility. Back in 1948, the tax code defined a small business as having 10 or less shareholders or owners for Subchapter S treatment. In the estate tax area, relief was geared to the same definition under Subchapter S. In 1976, when Congress re-visited the estate tax, it extended the deferral and installment payment relief to businesses with 15 or less owners in keeping with the revised Subchapter S definition of small business. In 1996, Congress modified the definition of a small business under Subchapter S to mean a business with less than 75 owners, but Congress failed to make the comparable change in the estate tax. Consequently estate tax relief for closely held businesses is now based on an antiquated definition. The proposal in the bill Mrs. McCarthy and I are introducing, raises the number of permissible shareholders and partners in a qualifying business from 15 to 75 for purposes of section 6166 relief. Again, our proposal is consistent with the definition of a small business corporation in section 1361 of the tax code. Congress, in the Small Business Jobs Protection Act of 1996, had raised the permissible number of shareholders from 35 to 75 for small business corporations under section 1361, and Congress in that same bill should have made the same change for estate tax relief back in 1996. As I stated earlier, owners of closely held, family businesses have to sell their business to meet their estate tax liability. The proposed relief gives family-owned businesses as well as other closely held businesses, additional time to pay the tax. Business earnings could then be used to pay the decedent's estate tax liability without having to sell business assets or the business itself. The children could continue to own and run the family business. I commend this bill to my colleagues.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I express my support for the inclusion of the Hawaiian Homelands Homeownership Act, in the American Homeownership and Economic Opportunity Act, H.R. 1776. I appreciate the leadership of Representative Rick Lazio on this bill. The Native Hawaiian housing provisions that were a part of the manager's amendment are similar to legislation that I introduced in the 105th Congress. I am hopeful that we can continue to work together to assure these important initiatives are signed by President Clinton this year. The purpose of the Hawaiian Homelands Homeownership Act is to allow access to federal housing assistance programs to Native Hawaiians who are eligible to reside on Hawaiian Home Lands but do not qualify for private mortgage loans. Although Federal housing assistance programs in Hawaii have been administered on a racially neutral basis, Native Hawaiians continue to have the greatest unmet need for housing and the highest rates of overcrowding in the United States. Forty-nine percent of Native Hawaiians experience housing problems as compared to 44 percent for American Indian and Alaska Native households and 27 percent for all other households in the United States. These troubling statistics are not recent news. In 1920, Congress enacted the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act to address Congressional findings that Native Hawaiians were a landless and distressed population. Under the Act, approximately 200,000 acres of public land that had been ceded to the United States in what was then the Territory of Hawaii would be set aside for the native people of Hawaii. When Hawaii was admitted into the Union of States in 1959, title to the 200,000 acres of land was transferred to the State of Hawaii with the requirement that the lands be held in public trust for the betterment of the conditions of Native Hawaiians. The Hawaii Admissions Act also required that the Hawaii State Constitution provide for the assumption of a trust responsibility for the lands. The lands are now administered by a State agency, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. The Hawaiian Homes Commission Act authorized general leases of land set aside under the Act. Congress anticipated that revenues derived from general leases would be sufficient to develop the necessary infrastructure and housing on the home lands. However, general lease revenue has not proven sufficient to address infrastructure and housing needs. There are approximately 60,000 Native Hawaiians who are eligible to lease and reside on the home lands. However, due to the lack of resources to develop infrastructure (roads, access to water and sewer and electricity), hundreds of Native Hawaiians have been put on a waiting list and died before receiving an assignment of home lands. In 1995, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands published a Beneficiary Needs Study as a result of research conducted by an independent research group. This study found that among the Native Hawaiian population, the needs of those eligible to reside on the Hawaiian home lands are the most severe--with 95 percent of home lands applicants (16,000) in need of housing. Additionally, one-half of those applicant households face overcrowding and one-third pay more than 30 percent of their income for shelter. The Hawaiian Homelands Homeownership Act will help move Hawaiians into their own homes. People have spent decades on the Hawaiian waiting list. One of the obstacles that has kept people from getting homesteads has been their inability to qualify for home lands. Once this bill becomes law, they'll have access to the loans they need to attain the dream of homeownership.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, let me state that I do not think anyone has worked harder on this issue than the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer). No one has worked with more diligence to try and put together a package that we can present to the body, some of which has already been mentioned, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) indicated about the prescription benefit. We do not want the good work that has been put together to get lost in this particular argument, and I do not even want to say it is an argument. As a matter of fact, that is one of the points I want to make. I do not think, and I hope that everyone on the committee would certainly recognize, that no one has tried to work harder than with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) than myself. This has been a bipartisan effort. And I really believe, I honestly believe, my friends, that we may be having a dispute over something which really we have no argument about. I was quite content with the bill the way it was in the sense that we were trying to work the Medicare subvention thing, something which I support and many people have supported right straight through. The question, though, for us now is the Committee on Rules has made this in order. And in my conversations with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), I indicated if they made it in order, I thought that perhaps the best role for us to take was to go to the full expansion and see where we win out. Let me tell my colleagues why. The difference between what the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) has and what the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) has again may be a distinction without a real difference if we work this right. The amendment to the amendment or the substitute that the chairman has extends it to some additional sites, the Taylor amendment makes it nationwide. Here is the implementation idea, because I think in the end, we want to go to subvention, Medicare subvention. The Taylor amendment now reads beginning next January, but full implementation does not take place till 2005. And the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) now has beginning in 2002 and could be limited at least in terms of the experimental time for about 15 months. In other words, we are talking about a difference in time. There is not a difference in principle here. There is a position versus our interests. And I think our interests are to try and extend it now, not because there is a victory or a defeat in this, but rather that inasmuch as we are going to expand the program anyway, let us expand it nationwide, let us give the House the opportunity to work its will on this, and then we will move; as General Ryan has indicated in his letter, that we need to have a more equitable arrangement than is now possible on cost effectiveness between the HCFA and the DOD. Certainly, the Armed Forces will work with us. In fact, he says ``I ask your support in working with the DOD, HCFA and the Congress to develop cost-effective solutions.'' I think virtually everything that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) has said with respect to the difficulties is absolutely correct. I do not think anybody in any honesty can argue with it, but if we give this a chance to work nationwide, I think that we will all be the winners in the end. And I hope that we can come together on that resolution. I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) for all of his help.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I rise on this occasion to reiterate my support for the agreement reached by the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Navy, the Governor of Puerto Rico, to resolve the impasse over the Navy's training at Vieques. As a witness to the experience of Kaho'olawe, a small island in Hawaii which was bombed for many years and on which significant progress has been made, I feel I am uniquely qualified to speak on the issue of Vieques. The agreement between the Department of Defense and the Governor of Puerto Rico was thoughtfully crafted and the product of tireless effort. The agreement addresses the concerns of American citizens of Vieques and assures that our training needs are met. This agreement was reached not with the protestors but with the lawful authorities in Puerto Rico. Because of the agreement, the Federal and local government enforcement officers removed the demonstrators blocking access to the training facility and the Navy is conducting training on Vieques as we speak. Now last week, the Committee on Armed Services approved language that disrupts this carefully-crafted agreement and I want to discourage my colleagues from further jeopardizing the outcome they wish to obtain regarding the Navy's presence in Vieques. Disruption would require the Vieques issue to go back to the drawing board. We should respect the hard work that has been done, and the national security interests representing the people of Vieques will be served. Further, this effort by the Congress could very well end up backfiring. Disruption of the process will inevitably bring negative consequences for the Navy, and in that ill-fated effort it kills the possibility of building a relationship between the Navy and the people of Vieques. The resolution is best accomplished by moving forward with the agreement. The Skelton amendment takes the first step towards living up to the negotiated agreement. I urge all my colleagues, particularly those on the Committee on Armed Services, to support the agreement reached by the Department of Defense and the Governor and support the Skelton amendment.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I was unavoidable detained from presence on the House Floor. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: House Concurrent Resolution 326, Responsibility for New Mexico fires--``yes'' Passage of H.R. 4425, Military Construction Appropriations for FY 2001--``yes.''

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill. I am disappointed with the rule as it stands before the body. But the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 is very urgent for the United States. I strongly urge my colleagues on the Committee on Rules to reconsider their decision on many amendments that do not appear before the House today. The bill before us builds upon last year's achievements and continues our efforts to improve the quality of life for our military personnel retirees and their families. I am particularly pleased that the bill includes several provisions, which I support, to improve the military health care system, particularly for our Medicare-eligible retirees and their families. This year, the Year of Health Care, we have made significant improvements in the military health care system in response to concerns raised by service members, retirees, and their families. The health care provisions of this bill will greatly improve their quality of life, particularly for Medicare-eligible retirees and their dependents. The TRICARE Senior Pharmacy Program will restore access to the National Mail Order Pharmacy, the network retail pharmacies, and the out-of-network pharmacies. It is a major step towards improving health care for our Medicare-eligible retirees. We have improved access to TRICARE. We have reduced and streamlined the administrative costs, and we are using the savings to improve health care benefits for our military personnel, retirees and their families. I am particularly pleased that this bill includes provisions which we have supported on our side of the aisle, and I am particularly pleased to have been able to work with the gentleman from Indiana (Chairman Buyer) to see that everything has been included. It includes improvements to pay, it reduces out-of-pocket housing costs for service members, and provides funding for the Military Thrift Savings Plan. These provisions help us build upon our achievements of last year, which was the Year of the Troops. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the chairman, and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, for their leadership in producing a bipartisan bill that will improve the lives of our service members. I particularly want to commend again the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) for working with me and other members on the committee to ensure that our men and women in uniform have the quality of life that they deserve.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, as I requested a leave of absence for today, May 15, 2000, had I been present on the following rollcall votes I would have voted: H. Res. 491, Naming a Room to the House of Representatives Wing of the Capitol in Honor of G.V. ``Sonny'' Montgomery, ``yea''; H.R. 4251, Congressional Oversight of Nuclear Transfers to North Korea Act, ``yea''; H. Con. Res. 309, In-School Personal Safety Education, ``yea''. {time} 1900

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the significance of May 11th, as Equal Pay Day. Today is the day when women's wages for the period beginning January 1, 1999, will equal the amount earned by a man during calendar year 1999. Since the passage of landmark legislation like the Equal Pay Act and the Civil Rights Act, women's participation in the labor market has increased dramatically. Unfortunately, their pay has not. Women continue to earn less than men for comparable work. U.S. Census data from 1998 shows that women earn only 73 cents for every dollar earned by men. Equal pay is a problem for all working women. For example, the 95 percent of nurses who are women earn $30 less each week than the 5 percent of nurses who are men. Unequal pay doesn't just affect women, it affects our entire economy. I had hoped that I would be able to bring forward the resolution that Representative Morella and I introduced recognizing Equal Pay Day. Unfortunately, the Republican Leadership in the House refuses to acknowledge the significant effects of unequal pay on working women and their families. This Congress can do more than rest on the laurels of equal pay legislation that passed over 30 years ago. I urge all Members of Congress to commemorate Equal Pay Day. Let women in your district know that you will pursue the passage of equal pay legislation in the 106th Congress.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my support for H.R. 3244, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000. Trafficking in human beings is an evil which many assume was abolished long ago. Sadly, this is not the case. Human trafficking remains one of the worst human rights violations of the contemporary world. Its victims are typically the poorest, the most vulnerable and most disadvantaged. Trafficking is global in scope, fed by poverty, lawlessness, dictatorship and indifference. Each year, more than one million people, mostly women and children, are lured or forced into slavery. Traffickers buy young girls from relatives, kidnap children from their homes or lure women with false promises of legitimate employment. Traffickers use rape, starvation, torture, extreme physical brutality and psychological abuse to force victims to work in horrible conditions as prostitutes, in sweatshops or domestic servitude. Every American should be concerned and ashamed that many of these victims-- perhaps numbering in the thousands--are trafficked into the United States each year. It is clear that we need stronger laws to deter trafficking. We especially need to impose disincentives to deter the international criminal rings which profit from the practice. H.R. 3244 includes these disincentives and other provisions to deter and punish traffickers by: Establishing new criminal provisions and increasing criminal and other penalties for traffickers; Establishing initiatives to prevent trafficking by educating potential victims and improving their economic conditions to decrease the lure of traffickers; Authorizing assistance for countries where victims originate to help them; Authorizing a new visa for trafficking victims and providing certain federal benefits for such victims to create a safe haven so that victims will escape their conditions and help prosecute the traffickers; Cutting off non-humanitarian assistance to countries that do not effectively combat trafficking, while providing the President a national interest waiver; and Focusing U.S. Government efforts in order to create greater interagency coordination to combat this problem. Trafficking in human beings is a shameful blot on the contemporary world. It imposes unspeakable hardship and cruelty on millions of people. I support the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, because it provides a legal framework to attack this contemporary evil. This measure deserves our support, because it affirms our adherence to universally accepted norms of human rights and it gives concrete expression to our will to defend and extend those rights.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution with Representative Constance Morella to recognize the significance of May 11th as Equal Pay Day. May 11, 2000, is the day when women's wages for the period beginning January 1, 1999, will equal the amount earned by a man during calendar year 1999. Equal Pay Day represents the 17 months that the average woman must work to earn the same amount the average man earns in just 12 months. It is calculated according to the U.S. Census Bureau data showing a 27% wage gap in 1998. While women's participation in the labor market has increased dramatically over the last few decades, their pay has not. Women now comprise 46% of all workers, up from 33% in 1960. During this same period, federal legislation was enacted with the intent of mitigating labor market discrimination against women and others. This Equal Pay Act, mandated equal pay for men and women employed in the same or substantially same jobs in a company. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibited discrimination in employment and compensation against women and other protested classes of workers. Executive Order 11246 also forbade labor market discrimination and required affirmative action for protested classes of workers employed by federal contractors and subcontractors. Yes, these measures have given today's working women opportunities their mothers never had. Women now work in many different fields, each requiring different skills and experience and paying different wages. However, opening doors for working women has not closed the door on pay discrimination. Women continue to earn less than men for comparable work. U.S. Census data from 1998 shows that women earn only 73 cents for every dollar earned by men. Women get paid less because employers still discriminate in several ways. (1) Jobs usually held by women pay less than jobs traditionally held by men--even if they require the same education, skills and responsibilities. For example, stock and inventory clerks, who are mostly men, earn about $470 a week. General office clerks, on the other hand, are mostly women and they earn only $361 a week. (2) Women don't have equal job opportunities. A newly hired woman may get a lower-paying assignment than a man starting work at the same time for the same employer. That first job starts her career path and can lead to a lifetime of lower pay. (3) Women don't have an equal chance at promotions, training and apprenticeships. Because all these opportunities affect pay, women don't move up the earnings ladder as men do. Equal pay is a problem for all working women. Women lawyers--median weekly earnings are nearly $300 less than those of male attorneys--and women secretaries--who receive about $100 a week less than male clericals; Women doctors--median earnings are more than $500 less each week than men's earnings--and the 95 percent of nurses who are women but earn $30 less each week than the 5 percent of nurses who are men; Women professors--median pay is $170 less each week than men's pay-- and women elementary school teachers--receive $70 less a week than men; Women food service supervisors--paid about $60 less each week than men in the same job--and waitresses--weekly earnings are $50 less than waiters' earnings. (AFL-CIO data) Every penny lost to wage inequity means fewer dollars available for women to spend on food, rent, health care, and education. So, unequal pay doesn't just affect women, it affects our entire economy. A working lifetime of diminished earnings costs the average working woman an estimated $250,000 in lost wages. Lower lifetime earnings translates into lower pension, retirement benefits and savings. As a result, women are more likely to enter retirement in poverty. By calling attention to these facts, our Equal Pay Day Resolution can heighten awareness and help create a climate in which pay discrimination can be eliminated and every person paid according to his or her worth. I am introducing this bill with 23 original cosponsors to demonstrate strong support in the U.S. House of Representatives for change across the country.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, I was unavoidably detained by a Hawaii Congressional delegation meeting with the Secretary of Interior, and I consequently was unable to vote on three recorded votes. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: Rollcall 120, to pass H.R. 2328, to re-authorize the Clean Lakes Program--``yes''; rollcall 121, to pass H.R. 3039, Chesapeake Bay water restoration--``yes''; rollcall 122, to pass H.R. 2884, to extend the Strategic Petroleum Reserve program--``yes.''

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I think that it is very, very important, speaking as a Member of the Committee on Armed Services who was there when this statement was made, and reflecting for a moment on very cogent remarks of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman), the reason that we need to pass this today is to at least set in motion the fact that we are not going to make an open-ended commitment here. We are dealing with numbers that have been the case so far with the commitment of the United States. It is very, very important in the context of what has happened from Vietnam on that we not find ourselves stumbling into something from which we cannot come back, getting into something from which we cannot retreat if it is found to be necessary. Of course, we need to take into account exactly what should be done with respect to numbers or anything else, but failing to do this today we will find ourselves in a position where that kind of benchmark has not been established. Mr. Chairman, I think it is very, very important for us to pass this amendment today on the basis that we do not find ourselves drifting inextricably into a situation that we cannot only control, but for the consequences of which may be something that all of us would find most grievous in terms of what the Congress of the United States did. I recognize that we are near the end of a day in which people may be leaving; that the full attention may not be on this question right now. That is even a more important reason that we pass this amendment today.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) knows how reluctant all of us are to rise in opposition to this, but I feel I must as a member of the Committee on Armed Services and a witness to the experience of the Island of Kahoolawe, which was an island in Hawaii which had received live-fire operations for many decades and where that has ceased as a result of the efforts of the people of Hawaii. We certainly share the national security concerns of the gentlewoman from Florida, but I feel very strongly that her amendment would stall the progress towards a positive solution. Mr. Chairman, the agreement worked out between the Department of Defense and the Governor of Puerto Rico was very thoughtfully crafted and a product of tireless effort. This agreement was not reached with the protestors, but with the lawful authorities of Puerto Rico. Resolution is best accomplished by moving forward with the agreement. Mr. Chairman, I can say that I have a copy of the Navy Times of April 3, and it says, ``Stay on Vieques, residents say.'' It may very well be that the referendum will turn out in a positive way in the direction that the gentlewoman requires. So I ask that her amendment be defeated.