Neil Abercrombie

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, as the ranking member of the House Subcommittee on Military Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services, I rise today in strong support of the amendment offered by my dear friend and colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). All Members who believe that we owe our military service members and their family members access to quality health care should support the substitute amendment being offered by the gentleman from South Carolina. The budget being proposed by the gentleman from South Carolina upholds the commitment to our armed forces personnel, particularly our military retirees who were promised health care in return for service to this great Nation. I support the Democratic budget amendment because it embodies the spirit of H.R. 3655, a bill I introduced along with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the House Committee on Armed Services, and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), to improve health care services for our Nation's service members, retirees, and their dependents. I regret deeply that the Committee on the Budget failed to incorporate necessary authority for the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, enabling us to complete that which should be a bipartisan task. I have high regard for the commitment of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) on these issues. Last year's success on efforts regarding pay, promotion, and benefits in the context of recruitment, retention, and retirement demonstrated what can be done when we set aside partisan considerations. I intend to continue to work with the chairman to accomplish these goals. But absent the Committee on the Budget preparing us for this, we have to go with the Democratic substitute in order to have our military retirees, our existing active duty members and their families receive the kind of health care that they have been promised. Our active duty troops and their families are having difficulty with access to military health care systems. The budget alternative before us today would allow for the elimination of copays for active duty personnel and their families who are in the TRICARE Prime program. The amendment also increases access to health care. Currently, families that receive care at a military treatment facility pay no co-payments. However, families that are not fortunate to live near a military treatment facility and use civilian health care providers in the TRICARE PRIME system must pay co-pays. This is not fair. The amendment also increases access to health care for our military family members who are often living in remote, rural areas by expanding the TRICARE Prime Remote program. These families are doing some of the hardest duty in the military. We should ensure that these families are cared for, which means that they should not have to drive hundreds of miles to receive health care for which they are entitled. Their ability to access health care services is just as important. Mr. Chairman, as our honored retired service members continue to age, their need for access to quality health care continues to grow. Today, thousands of our military retirees and their families are often going without the necessary medical care that they need and deserve because they have been shut out of the military health care system. As you may know, under the current program, military retirees who reach the age of 65 are forced out of the TRICARE Program and receive their health care services through Medicare. For many of these retirees who were promised access to military health care for their lifetime, this has been a broken promise of their faith. Many of these retirees and their families were led to believe that they would have access to military health care services if they made a career of serving their nation. Unfortunately, as the Department of Defense has drawn down and a number of military hospitals and clinics continue to close, space- available care remains elusive for most retirees. For these Medicare- eligible retirees, many of who are living on a fixed income, the prospects of costly medical care and high-priced pharmaceuticals is a scary proposition. The alternative budget proposal before us today would allow us to restore the necessary access to quality health care for military retirees over age 65 and their families. The amendment includes a provision that would incorporate the expansion of the TRICARE Senior Prime program, more commonly known as Medicare Subvention. This three- year demonstration program, which will be completed at the end of the year, has been well received by the over 65 retirees. Expansion of this program within the Department of Defense will help a number of military retirees who live near military treatment facilities. For those who may not live near a military treatment facility, the budget proposal includes funding to expand the current pharmacy benefits. Pharmacy costs for these individuals are often the largest share of health care spending. The average retiree over age 65 spends approximately $620 for prescriptions. For a retired enlisted noncommissioned officer and his family, pharmacy costs can sometimes be nearly 50 percent of their monthly income. Often these families are placed in a difficult and traumatic position of choosing between whether to purchase their prescription drugs or food on their table. The substitute amendment before us today will improve access to the TRICARE program and enhance access to care for military retirees. I hope that my colleagues will support the Spratt budget amendment and uphold our moral obligation to provide for the health care of our nation's Armed Forces.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I realize that not all of our colleagues are on the floor at the moment, but for those who are paying attention to this discussion here today, how is it possible for us to make any progress in this at all if we are going to sit here and talk about let us help. The gentleman who spoke previously knows perfectly well that the 415 provision he is talking about is in both bills. This is not a Republican issue or a Democratic issue, and it has been made that way. If those of us who are genuinely interested in the minimum wage, and in tax breaks for businesses that deserve it with respect to the minimum wage, had been allowed to carry on our negotiations, Republicans and Democrats alike, we would have that legislation on this floor and we would not have this agonizing session that we are having today. The reason that we are not here today on a bill that Republicans and Democrats can get together on is because the Republican leadership has said they do not want that to happen. How can we turn the poorest of the poor into an issue that we then utilize to try to hurt them because we think it is going to benefit us somehow? I appeal to my Republican colleagues and to those Democrats who may be concerned about it in terms of small business implications. We have crafted a bill which is essentially the Republican-Democratic compromise that we wanted in the first place. It is not our fault; it is not the fault of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) that that is appearing as ``the Democratic substitute.'' I wish it would say just the substitute on this issue, because Republicans and Democrats can support it and take credit. The Democrats will say, hey, yes, we were for the minimum wage; but we were not hurting small business. We are actually benefiting small business with targeted tax credits for small business. That was not something I dreamed up as a Democrat. There is no such thing as a business meal entertainment deduction for Republicans and a spousal travel deduction for Democrats. It helps everybody connected with the travel industry, with the tourism industry, for those who want to take people off welfare and put them to work. That is Republicans and Democrats. My plea to my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, is to pass the so-called Democratic substitute because it is really the congressional substitute, to see to it that small businesses and those directly affected by the minimum wage will have the benefit of it. Please take this off the ideological lines. Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore are going to beat each other up for 7 months and 27 days after today. The poor people in this country who deserve the tax break, the small business people who deserve the benefit of the minimum wage combination of tax incentives and a minimum wage raise will be the beneficiaries and we can all take credit. My bottom line plea to you, Mr. Speaker, and to my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats alike, let us put this together, a minimum wage increase and a small business tax incentive that makes some sense, that blends together. We can all claim credit for it. We can all come out of this institution today feeling that we have accomplished something not as Democrats or Republicans but as Americans who are concerned about other Americans.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of House Resolution 396.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, earlier today when the House voted on House Joint Resolution 80, to extend the continuing resolution for 24 hours, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes''.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, as we know, we were originally scheduled to meet here on Friday last. Unfortunately, though requests were made to see whether we could meet perhaps on Monday or Tuesday, that was denied by the distinguished majority leader. We were not informed that we were not to come in on Friday until Thursday morning. I would just like to indicate to the distinguished majority leader and any other Members who might be interested in the Veterans Day ceremonies that took place out in Hawaii, I will be happy to forward newspaper accounts and television transcript excerpts to them if they want to be informed about them, inasmuch as that is the way that I had to find out about them myself. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether the majority would be prepared to tell us at this time whether or not we can anticipate leaving tomorrow or the next day or the next day, or any day thereafter.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, the Chair will have to give me some guidance. Part of regular order, Mr. Chairman, is to see to it that every Member is allowed to deal with his or her district and still be able to, under the rules of this House, fulfill his or her duties with respect to voting.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I will not be silenced on this.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I will not be silenced on this. There is not a Member here that does not know that I am speaking of something that goes to the vital interest of every single Member here.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, is every Member of this body entitled to equal treatment on this floor?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. This is unseemly, Mr. Chairman. I would not deny any Member in this House the right to vote.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Is it the Chair's ruling that I am out of order wanting to be able to vote on this floor?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I believe that under what the majority leader just stated, I will be prevented from being able to go home and come back in adequate time to be able to vote.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I understand only too well the necessities of strategy and tactics, and I respect that. I respect the majority leader's position and difficulties associated with trying to pass legislation. I also understand the politics that is involved. But every Member here, I would say to the majority leader, is entitled to be treated with equal respect. There are simply logistical difficulties. Obviously, I have one. But I feel I am as entitled as any Member here to be able to participate fully. And if that involves having to alter the logistics of when the bills hit the floor, then I think that has to be respected. It should not take any reminding of the body that perhaps the most important event that took place in this century, as least as far as this country is concerned, took place on December 7, 1941, and I intend to be on the Battleship Missouri for that commemoration tomorrow night. Not because of any particular regard I have for myself being there, but I took my oath of office in the well of this House along with every other Member here and I am a representative, for good or for ill as far as this country is concerned, from the First District and I intend to be at this commemoration representing this body. Mr. Speaker, this is the workplace of democracy. There is no reason whatsoever, and no reason to believe whatsoever that I can determine, that we are going to be prepared to move this legislation on Friday. I do not doubt for a moment that the majority leader and his negotiators will be doing their level best to conclude their business on this. But let us face the facts of life. We cannot logistically do this and give every Member an opportunity to pay his or her respects as they are supposed to as representatives of this greatest democracy on the face of the Earth. We cannot be here before next Monday, and I ask the majority leader to simply acknowledge that and let us move on with our business.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 189, relating to the practice of shark finning. There is no question that the practice is wasteful of a resource and should be discontinued. This issue has been on the agenda of the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (WESPAC), which is responsible for managing our Western Pacific fisheries resources. WESPAC has been studying this issue, and I encourage them to continue to do so in order to compile the necessary data to take definitive action. In that regard, I would note that the Council has requested additional funds from NMFS during the past three years to do so, and as evidenced by our endorsement of this resolution today, there is a critical need for NMFS to comply with the request. I want to work closely with Representatives Eni Faleomavaega, Jim Saxton, Wayne Gilchrest, George Miller, Don Young and the Appropriations Committee to make sure there is adequate federal support for the broad and extensive responsibilities for which WESPAC is charged. The fisheries of the Western Pacific economic zones for which WESPAC is responsible comprises approximately forty-eight percent of the entire area NMFS regulates, but WESPAC receives only twelve percent of the total funding all the commissions receive. We must make certain that we give the Commission the tools, resources and support they need in order to credibly discharge their formidable responsibilities. Secondly, I would like to point out that even with enactment of this resolution or additional legislation amending the Magnuson-Stevens Act to ban shark finning, this is an international problem, and follow-up action must be initiated and undertaken in order to effectively end the practice internationally. Far more fins are unloaded in California ports, Hong Kong and other sites than in Hawaii, and the issue of transshipping of fins must also be addressed. If we are serious about ending finning, we need to act on several fronts. By citing the waste inherent in finning, the resolution raises the issue of full utilization of the products harvested from sharks. Fins should not be the only part of animal used and we need to develop refined products and markets in order to more fully make good use of shark parts. The resolution cites the waste inherent in finning, and yet there is an implicit level of utilization in other marine products. For example, to what extent is taking solely roe from fish or sea urchins wasteful? NMFS should address these utilization issues as it undertakes regulatory actions impacting shark catches. The last matter I would like to raise is that of compensation for lost income which will be sustained by Hawaii fishermen and industry. Shark fins generate significant revenue, and traditionally most of its goes directly to the crews of the fishing fleet. The resolution does not address lost compensation for crews, but I am pointing out the issue to indicate the complexity of the issue, and equity in addressing the economic consequences of fisheries regulatory decisions, based on precedents set by previous NMFS actions and decisions. Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the resolution, as well as addressing the underlying and associated issues it raises.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I would like the Record to show that I would have liked to have been a cosponsor of H.R. 354, the Collections of Information Anti-Piracy Act, if the list of cosponsors was not closed. I strongly support the passage of H.R. 354.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

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

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, may I take it from the Speaker's remarks that he cannot do anything without me?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I thank the Speaker.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of the Lofgren-Conyers amendment to H.R. 2436, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. The bill is unfortunately flawed and needs to be modified because it fails to address the underlying issue--violence against women--pregnant or not. The majority of crimes against women occur during domestic violence and drunk driving incidents. I supported the Violence Against Women Act [VAWA] when it first became law in 1994. VAWA set up a national domestic violence hotline, grants for law enforcement, prosecution, and battered women shelters to combat violence and sexual assault. This Congress, I am a proud cosponsor of VAWA II which reauthorizes the original VAWA 1994 Act and has other provisions to further help protect women from violence. For example, the bill addresses sexual assault prevention and combating violence in the workplace. When we create laws that affect women, we cannot take the woman out of the equation which is what H.R. 2436 does. The woman is the victim of the crime and one of the best ways to protect a woman is to have VAWA II passed. I think everyone agrees that crimes against women are horrible. It's especially tragic when the woman is pregnant and that needs to be appropriately addressed which is why I am supporting the Lofgren-Conyers substitute, the Motherhood Protection Act of 1999. The Lofgren-Conyers substitute creates a federal criminal offense for harm to a pregnant woman and recognizes that the pregnant woman is the victim of a crime causing termination or harm during a pregnancy. The substitute provides for a maximum 20-year sentence for injury to a pregnant woman and a maximum life sentence for the termination of a pregnancy due to the assault. By focusing on the harm to the pregnant woman, it provides a deterrent against violence against women. I encourage my colleagues to support the Lofgren-Conyers substitute.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for those remarks. Mr. Speaker, I want to pay particular tribute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) and members of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, and thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) for the opportunity to work with him, and the rest of the committee members to help craft this bill. Mr. Speaker, I understand that there are, perhaps, difficulties associated with any bill that does not measure up in every respect for all Members. But in this particular instance, it seems to me that the overall course of events associated with the Department of Defense bill, the authorization bill that we have before us, merits our support. I will not recite it at great length other than to submit for the Record what we did with the Subcommittee on Military Personnel over and above the pay raise and the other issues that have been brought forward. I can say, I think, on behalf of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) as the chairman, that there are at least 17 specific issues associated with personnel measures that are a distinct advancement, some perhaps the best in 20 years. That is what is at stake with this bill. I want to mention just one in particular, the Thrift Savings Plan, that we have put forward. How can we expect to have our federal employees, which in effect our military are, be absent from the opportunity to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan. This bill provides for that opportunity. This takes 1.4 million families in the military, it takes 1.4 million people in the guard and reserves and their families, and makes them equal partners with the rest of us in the progress of this Nation as we turn the corner and the century. Mr. Speaker, I need go no further than to say that, as we go to East Timor, we will be calling up reservists to go to East Timor. We cannot conduct our deployments around the world without a guard and reserve component in conjunction with the act of military. So whether it is in East Timor, whether it is in Kosovo, whether it is in Bosnia, or whether it is in the United States, the armed services of the United States, in all their aspects, deserves our full support.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I see the distinguished members of the Committee on International Relations are here, others who are associated with this bill. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make clear a personal note, if I might, to the other Members. The East-West Center is a Federally chartered institution. It is not an entity which the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) or myself are associated with as Members of Congress per se. It is not an institution of the University of Hawaii or the State of Hawaii. I was there when it was founded 39 years ago when I was a student at the University of Hawaii. I am well acquainted with many of the alumni, Mr. Chairman, some 40,000 plus. We just finished today the conference report on the Committee on Armed Services. We have to fund our Armed Services because of our relationships to be prepared to defend the strategic interests of the United States and the Pacific Rim to the tune of billions and billions of dollars. We have 40,000 friends in Asia as a result of their experience at the East-West Center, which happens to be in Hawaii, which is the gateway for the United States of America and to all of Asia and South Asia and the Pacific Rim. I urge the Chair, and I urge the committee members who will be conference members as they deal with the Senate, to have an open mind based on the facts as I have outlined them and the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) has outlined them and based on the fact that the East-West Center is very much in the strategic interests of the United States as a Federally chartered institution and as a catalyst for friendship throughout all of Asia for the United States of America.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I have a point of inquiry. With this motion to instruct, can the gentleman tell me whether or not the cost of living allowance for our staffs will be in any way adversely affected?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. So if this bill is passed, regardless of the gentleman's instruction, the gentleman does not intend to include a cost of living allowance for our staffs?