Neil Abercrombie

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. In terms of our motivation, which I think is really sufficient just in the explanation that we have been giving right now on the basis of this dialog, I think that is more than sufficient to justify the effort being made. But there may be some who are somewhat skeptical of the idea that this is a bipartisan situation or that, regardless of the sincerity that my colleague and I may have or others may have in association with this, that perhaps there is going to end up a situation in which blame will be cast and accusations will be made, fingers will be pointed. But I think it would be fair to say, and I would be interested in the comments of my colleague or observations on my remarks, I think it is fair to say that we are concerned about whether or not this is going to work both from a practical military standpoint and from the idea also very, very important as to the future of NATO, the future of defense alliances, the future of the United States in terms of its credibility. The initial premises upon which the military activity was instigated included the prevention of ethnic cleansing, or certainly its alleviation, the easing of tensions in the Balkan region, and the extension of the credibility of NATO as a defensive alliance. And I think it is fair to say for many of us in the Congress, those premises are not only not being met but we believe that unless and until an alternative resolution can be found, those premises are being undermined if not actually thwarted or contradicted. And if this situation is not resolved, if we just continue on with the bombing so that the bombing becomes its own reason for being, then we will find ourselves in a situation in which the Congress, at a minimum, let alone the people of the United States, will find themselves in a position of having to passively stand by and let events get in the saddle and ride us.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. So the individuals involved here have been those who have expressed an interest in trying to take up the challenge that has been presented to us with the ending of the Cold War in order to establish relations between Russia, not the former Soviet Union, but Russia and the Newly Independent States with the United States of America in a manner and in a context which will help to establish not only peaceful relations but relations which will help to bring stability.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much, and I particularly want to at this time commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), although I know he never looks for that kind of approbation because he is devoted to his duty here in the Congress of the United States, but, nonetheless, I want to indicate the great affection and personal regard I have for him, not only on the basis of his commitment to his duties but on the basis of his commitment to us here in the Congress and trying to resolve this issue in a manner that can be seen as honorable by all parties concerned. I would like to enter, Madam Speaker, into a little bit of a dialogue with the gentleman from Pennsylvania on the basis that all of us who are consumed by this issue virtually daily now may be very familiar with the terms of our discussion, the terms of our dialogue, perhaps even the context within which we hope a dialogue will be taking place not only in the Congress but perhaps internationally as well; but not all of our colleagues necessarily may be familiar with all the terms and the individuals, all the particular contexts, and certainly those who may review the record and hear us speaking may not be entirely familiar. So what I would like to do, if it is all right with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, is perhaps engage him in a bit of discussion that will, hopefully, illuminate some of the details.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. And those who are wanting to join with us in this effort with the Russians. We are not engaged in an academic exercise. What this is is carrying out our fundamental duty as Members of Congress, working together on behalf of the interests of the United States and the peace of the world, and to the degree, to any degree that we can advance that cause, I think then that it is our solemn and serious duty to carry forward with it. Now, I know that is acceptable to you. I hope it is acceptable to our colleagues. That is in fact our motivation, that is our interest, that is our intention. I trust that at the conclusion of tonight's special order and as we moved to the days ahead that we will be able to carry through on the task that we have set before us. My hope is that others will join us, that this is by no means an exclusive group or any kind of self-appointed points on any diplomatic spear or anything of that kind. We are just reaching out to one another in an open way with a working group based on the Duma- Congressional relationship that we hope will succeed in at least helping to form a foundation for a peaceful resolution of the current situation.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. So while we expect the administration to do its job, we in the Congress have a job also, we in the Congress have a constitutional duty to perform, particularly when it comes to issues of war and peace, when it comes to deciding budgets and deciding directions and policies with respect to war and peace. That is, in fact, our obligation and our duty. So it is important I think, then, as we move towards, hopefully, some opportunity to pursue the initiative that my colleague has outlined so well I think it is important that we then have as the bottom-line motivation to be understood, not only by our colleagues but by the American people, we have as the bottom-line motivation that we want the interests of the United States to be protected by all means, and there is no question about that, but that the interest of the United States of America in terms of not being an Imperial power, not being a 21st century version of old Rome, in terms of attempting to make a good- faith effort to secure the universal declaration of human rights in a meaningful way, to see to it that, as American power is exercised, it is exercised on behalf of peace and the poor and the helpless. Those are not abstract philosophical elements as we see it, I believe. I think I am speaking for you as well as myself under these circumstances.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, our National Guard and Reservists have performed admirably whenever called upon to assist our military at home and abroad and to aid federal, state and local emergencies. Serving side by side with active military personnel, fire fighters and other professional counterparts, some Guard and Reservists are exposed to hazardous and physically demanding duty as a routine part of their job. A well-earned and timely retirement should be a welcome relief from a job that requires youth, strength and virgo. Yet, for a select group of talented individuals, known as Dual Status Technicians, retirement eligibility is several years beyond that of their counterparts. Dual Status Technicians are held to the same physical and mental criteria as their military counterparts and the jobs they perform are likewise challenging. Although active military personnel, fire fighters and federal police can retire after 20 years of service, Technicians must work until age 55 with 30 years of service to receive full benefits. This bill gives Dual Status Technicians retirement eligibility equity with their counterparts. The Military Reserve (Dual Status) Technicians Retirement Equity Bill allows qualified National Guard and Reservists the option to retire under the same criteria as other professionals in similar challenging careers.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to re-introduce the Investment in Women's Health Act. I am re-introducing this bill with Congresswoman Mary Bono and the support of the National Cervical Cancer Coalition, the College of American Pathologists, and the American Society of Clinical Pathologists. Last year, Dr. James Navin from Straub Hospital visited my office to alert me to a very serious inequity in the pap smear reimbursement rate in Hawaii. Health insurers in Hawaii had apparently taken a cue from the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) and lowered their pap smear reimbursement rate. Under this lower rate, the local laboratories would lose a significant amount of money on each screening. In fact, the reimbursement rate was low enough to force the laboratories to consider getting out of the business completely. Fortunately, the laboratories were able to convince the health insurers of the need for increased reimbursement. The laboratories were then compensated with a break even reimbursement rate for the pap smears. I soon found out that the low reimbursement rate is not only a problem in Hawaii, but across the entire United States. The low rate of Medicare reimbursement for pap smears has an impact on the rates paid by third party payers who peg their payments on what the government pays. To address the deficiency, I introduced legislation last year to raise HCFA's reimbursement rate for pap smears. Due to wide spread support, progress on this issue was made with the inclusion of report language in the Omnibus bill for fiscal year 1999 urging HCFA to use its existing statutory authority to raise the reimbursement rate by administrative action. Unfortunately, the reimbursement rate has not increased and the time table for any change is unclear. In order to rectify this situation, my legislation defines the date for an increase in the pap smear reimbursement rate and sets the rate at the national average for production costs. For women in Hawaii and the rest of the nation, this means we can assure their access to reliable and timely pap smear results. Everyone knows that pap smears save lives. With annual screening, the chance of developing cervical cancer can be reduced to less than 1%. Over the last 40 years, the incidence of invasive cervical cancer has decreased significantly due to early detection efforts. Still, an estimated 13,700 new cases of invasive cervical cancer will be diagnosed in 1998, and 4,900 women will die of the disease. Screening for cervical cancer allows doctors to catch the disease in its early stages and save a life. A 70 percent decline in deaths due to cervical cancer in the last 50 years can be directly attributed to pap smears. An adequate pap smear reimbursement level demonstrates respect for the women and families who benefit from a timely and accurate annual pap smear. I am anxious to continue the work we have begun with HCFA and am counting on my colleagues support for the Investment in Women's Health Act of 1999.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge that the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) is here to begin his hour presentation, I believe, and I want to thank him for his courtesy in allowing me to claim this five minutes. I am sure that he will join with me and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and others with respect to the very important subject that we wish to devote just a few minutes to today. Mr. Speaker, surely we can take some time at this particular juncture to devote attention, in this special order, to the difficulties that are now being experienced in what was the former Soviet Union, that is to say, in Russia. The Supreme Court in a Supreme Court session in Russia is being held on the 4th of February with respect to the Alexander Nikitin case. The case, Mr. Speaker, is important not only to Captain Nikitin and those who are interested in addressing issues of freedom in Russia, but it has profound consequences for all of us on the planet. Captain Nikitin has been the leading exponent of making clear what is happening with nuclear deterioration with the submarine fleet in the former Soviet Union. The degradation that is taking place in the environment there is something of concern, not only to the Russian people, but to all of us throughout the world. He is now being tried as a result of trying to bring this information forward in a more clear sense than it has been available before. I want to indicate for those Members and those who may become aware of the special orders today throughout the Nation that they can contact the Bellona Foundation, B-E-L-L-O-N-A, at P.O. Box 11835 in Washington D.C., 20008, and contact the Bellona Foundation if you want to aid and assist Captain Nikitin in Russia, if you want to become more aware of what is taking place with the deterioration of the nuclear submarines in the former Soviet Union. The Supreme Court is going to hear the appeal, as I indicated, on Thursday, February 4. I expect a verdict will be there the same day. For those of you who are not familiar with the case and the circumstances, let me give you a little background very quickly. The Council for Criminal Cases in the Supreme Court in Russia takes many former Soviet dissidents back to the times of the KGB. They have a special department there supervised by the KGB. They used to have one responsible for handling crimes against the state. I want it understood what is being said in Russia today is to express opinions and to discuss information that is otherwise available publicly, in public, in Russia today, is seen as a point of subversion and treason. That is what Captain Nikitin is being tried for. So what we are asking, Mr. Speaker, is that the Department of State pay particular interest and approach their counterparts in Moscow to indicate that the United States is very, very concerned about this situation, that we are watching it, that they are not going to be able to do this behind closed doors and get away with it. They are not used to public hearings in Russia and they are scared to go public on this. It is very, very important that Captain Nikitin's case be recognized by our Department of State as something that Members of this Congress are very, very concerned about, and I call on other Members to acquaint themselves with the circumstances. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) is well aware of it, as I said. He is unable to be with us today to discuss the situation further. But I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, and I assure the other Members, this is not the last time that I will be on this floor, nor that individuals like the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) will be here. Let me conclude by indicating to that on a recent Congressional delegation trip to Russia, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) as the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Armed Services led a delegation of individuals from the Congress there, and we met with Captain Nikitin. We can provide you information, Mr. Speaker, on the case in more detail, but we just want to alert you and alert the State Department today that we expect to have this case front and center in the consciences of everyone who is concerned about the environmental degradation taking place in Russia today as a result of the deterioration of the nuclear submarines that are presently being mothballed. Mr. Speaker, I insert the following for the Record: Dr. Caraway: As you know the Supreme Court will hear the Nikitin appeal on Thursday. The verdict should be announced the same day. We will see then. Unfortunately, the hearing will take place behind closed doors, somewhat incomprehensible given that the hearing is not about the secrecy question, but about procedural issues. Yours, Thomas Jandl, Director, Bellona USA. nikitin supreme court session behind closed doors The Supreme Court session in the Nikitin case on 4 February will be held behind closed doors. The presiding judge, a member of an officially abolished department within the Supreme Court Council for the Criminal Cases, made the decision in fear that state secrets might be released. The Nikitin case will be tried by the Council for the Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court. Many former Soviet dissidents associate this particular council with the dark times of KGB rule back in the Soviet past. The Council used to have a special department supervised by the KGB and responsible for the handling of crimes against the state. The special department was officially abolished as the `wind of democracy' swept across the former Soviet Union, but its membership remained intact. ``The judges in the Council have been sitting there for as long as I can recall,'' says Yury Schmidt, defender of Aleksandr Nikitin and former Soviet dissident. ``They are not used to open hearings, they are scared to go public,'' adds Schmidt. The court will not consider the merits of the case, but rather evaluate the legality of the 29 October 1998 St. Petersburg City Court ruling to send the case back for further investigation. No legal grounds to have closed session. ``The only legal reference they can find to justify the closed door hearings is the fact that the case formally deals with so-called state secrets,'' says Yury Schmidt. ``But the court's task is not to go to the substance of the case, but rather evaluate the legal side of it. What secrets could this constitute,'' asks Schmidt rhetorically. According to Schmidt, there were quite solid grounds to have the court session behind closed doors in the St. Petersburg City Court as the court was examining the alleged secret material. A substantial part remained open to the public. ``To have the Supreme Court session closed can either be explained by the pressure from the FSB (successor to the KGB) or by the initiative of a KGB-trained judge'', says Schmidt. the judge's decision When approached for comments Supreme Court press spokesman Nikolay Gastello said the decision was taken by the presiding judge, Magomed A. Karimov. Gastello could neither comment on the motives of the judge nor say if the judge would change his mind. ``It was not an unexpected decision,'' says Aleksandr Nikitin, who arrived in Moscow today. ``The FSB is there and does whatever it can to win the case.'' the nikitin case Aleksandr Nikitin is charged with espionage and disclosure of state secrets while working for the Bellona Foundation. He was arrested by the FSB on 6 February 1996, after writing two chapters of a Bellona report on the risks of radioactive pollution from Russia's Northern Fleet. Jailed for 10 months following his arrest, Nikitin has since been restricted to the city limits of St. Petersburg. His case was then tried in St. Petersburg City Court between October 20 and 29, 1998. The St. Petersburg judge's decision to return the case to further investigation was appealed by both the prosecutor and the defence. Their respective appeals are to be heard in the Supreme Court on 4 February 1999. Contacts in Moscow: Frederic Hauge and Thomas Nilsen. Contacts in Oslo: Bellona Main Office. Contacts in Washington: Thomas Jandl. More info: http://www.bellona.no/e/russia/nikitin/ mailto:info@bellona.no

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to re-introduce legislation to adjust the State of Hawaii's Federal medical assistance percentage [FMAP] rate. The intent of this bill is to more fairly reflect the ability of the state to bear its share of Medicaid payments. I am happy to have my colleague, Representative Patsy Mink, as a cosponsor of this measure. I am also pleased that our Hawaii Senators, Senator Daniel Akaka and Senator Daniel Inouye, have introduced similar legislation in the Senate, S. 264. The FMAP, or Federal share of the medical assistance expenditures under each state's Medicaid program, is determined annually by a formula that compares a state's average per capita income level with the national income average. States with a higher per capita income level are reimbursed a smaller share of their Medicaid costs. By law, the FMAP cannot be lower than 50 percent nor higher than 83 percent. In 1997, the FMAPs varied from 50 percent to 77.2 percent, with Hawaii receiving the lowest 50 percent rate. Alaska was another state receiving the lowest FMAP rate in 1997. However, in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, a provision increasing Alaska's FMAP rate to 59.8 percent for the next 3 years was included. Language in the Balanced Budget Act also mentioned that the same conditions warranting an increase in Alaska's FMAP rate applied to the State of Hawaii. The legislation that I am introducing today would conform Hawaii's rate with Alaska's. This bill would increase Hawaii's FMAP rate from 50 percent to 59.8 percent. The rationale for the FMAP change is quite simple. Hawaii's high cost of living skews the per capita income determining factor. Based on 1995 United States Census data, the cost of living in Honolulu is 83 percent higher than the average of the metropolitan areas. More recent studies have shown that for the state as a whole, the cost of living is more than one-third higher than the rest of the United States. In fact, Hawaii's Cost of Living Index ranks as the highest in the country. If per capita income is measured in real terms, the State of Hawaii ranks 47th at $19,755 compared to the national average of $24,231 (according to the twenty-first edition of ``The Federal Budget and the States,'' a joint study conducted by the Taubman Center for State and Local Government at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government and the office of Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan). Thus, Hawaii's 50 percent FMAP rate is understated because cost of living factors are not considered. Per capita income is a poor measure of Hawaii's relative ability to bear the cost of Medicaid services. Some government programs take the high cost of living in Hawaii into account and funding is adjusted accordingly. These programs include Medicaid prospective payment rates, food stamp allocations, school lunch programs, housing insurance limits, Federal employee salaries, and military living expenses. These examples show a Federal recognition that the higher cost of living in noncontiguous states should be taken into account in fashioning government program policies. It is time for similar recognition of this factor in gauging Hawaii's ability to support its health care programs. It is time to pass my bill increasing Hawaii's FMAP from 50 percent to 59.8 percent. Setting a higher match rate as was done for Alaska would still leave Hawaii with a lower FMAP rate than a majority of the states. However, the higher rate would better recognize Hawaii's ability to pay its fair share of the costs of the Medicaid program and I am committed to achieving it.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I made an appeal in the impeachment hearings on the 19th. I did not engage in accusations back and forth as to what the motivations were or anything. I made an appeal for fairness. I thought that a vote on censure was something that would have given balance to the debate. Since that time, and during that time, rather, I made an appeal to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman, on the basis of not just only personal friendship but on the basis of what he has represented to me and to other Members in the House. We have heard accusations that the rule of law would be compromised even to the point of perhaps recreating circumstances of the Holocaust. I do not think anybody really meant that anyone opposed to impeachment intended that kind of thing, but that is how this thing has begun to run away. Another Member who was for impeachment indicated that those of us who supported the President had engaged in an obscenity in going to the White House afterwards to show our support. If such a thing had been said on the floor, we would have taken down that Member's words because it would have meant that we were personally being attacked and accused, our character at point. So I ask again today for fairness. I ask that we turn down this motion on the managers so that we can get the opportunity to vote on a censure. I understand that Members who voted for impeachment have now asked the Senate to censure, and so I think that is only the fair way. I appeal to the chairman and to Members who voted for impeachment, give us this opportunity for fairness. Give us an opportunity to vote on censure.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I think I am perhaps the only Member here who won an election and lost an election on the same day. I won a special election in 1986 and lost a primary on the same day. As a result, I was the last person to be sworn into this body by Tip O'Neill before he retired. What I remember from that short time that I was here, not knowing whether I would come back, is remarks from Tip O'Neill and remarks from the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). Both of them said to me in the short time I was here, whether you are here 3 weeks, as I was, or whether you are here for 30 years, this is the people's House. This is the House of democracy. That lesson was given to me by Tip O'Neill and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). To not have the availability to us today to vote on a censure motion is to take away the fundamental sense of fairness that made me so proud to have been able to come to Hawaii 40 years ago, never knowing that I would have the chance to serve in this House and to be denied the opportunity now to vote on an alternative, a reasonable alternative that was emphasized by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and Tip O'Neill is a travesty.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 417, the Energy Conservation Reauthorization Act of 1998. The legislation we are considering today is important to the State of Hawaii and the Nation. Hawaii and the Pacific territories have special needs during an energy emergency since we are isolated from the U.S. energy supply by more than 7,000 miles or one-quarter of the way around the globe. Oil accounts for more than 90 percent of Hawaii's energy and almost all of our oil is imported. In addition, we depend entirely on oil for our electricity generation. The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve in Louisiana and Texas is designed to help all consumers by dampening price rises and using markets to allocate oil efficiently through swaps or proximity delivery. Even so, time emergency deliveries are still problematic. Since all of our oil is delivered by tanker, we are very vulnerable to a cutoff of oil supplies. This bill gives Hawaii emergency access to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve so that we can submit a special bid for oil during a declared emergency. The oil price from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve would equal the average of all SPR bids accepted by the Department of Energy. This bill also permits Hawaii to enter into an exchange agreement directing the SPR oil to be delivered to locations other than Hawaii. Another important provision in this bill is the biodiesel amendment. This provision should be important to all farmers and people concerned about the environment. Biodiesel is a renewable alternative fuel derived from vegetable oil or animal fat. It can be made from soybeans, canola, and even waste oils from fast food restaurants. Biodiesel fuel has many advantages. It is nontoxic. It can cut emissions of particulate matter and hydrocarbons in half. It can also reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Most important, biodiesel can reduce our national reliance on foreign oil. Biodiesel can be used directly in bus, truck, and marine vessel diesel engines. It does not require new refueling stations, new parts or expensive engine modifications. Islands are particularly suited to the manufacture of biodiesel fuels, as shown by Pacific Biodiesel. All islands have a difficult time disposing of waste products since landfill space is limited. On the islands of Hawaii, used cooking oils were unnecessarily taking up landfill space. Pacific Biodiesel currently processes 10,000 gallons of used cooking oil each month into premium biodiesel fuel. Many of the hotel buses in Hawaii now use biodiesel fuel that is produced by Pacific Biodiesel. Boats in the marinas are also using this high- quality fuel. The amendments to this bill will protect Hawaii from an energy crisis. They will also help our farmers and our environment. I urge my colleagues to support S. 417.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of the hearing held in the Committee on the Judiciary with respect to impeachment, a few words were uttered by Mr. Shippers. He said, I'm no longer speaking as Chief Investigative Counsel, but rather as a citizen of the United States who happens to be a father and a grandfather. To paraphrase Sir Thomas More in Robert Bolt's excellent play, `A Man for All Seasons': The laws of this country are the great barriers that protect the citizens from the winds of evil tyranny. If we permit one of those laws to fall, who will be able to stand in the gusts that will follow? This was, as Mr. Shippers indicated, a paraphrase. But I suggest, Mr. Speaker, it was a lot more than that. It takes Robert Bolt's words, it takes the life of Sir Thomas More as recounted in the play, ``A Man for All Seasons'' and turns it upside down. Mr. Speaker, as one of the Members who has cited a ``A Man for All Seasons'' and Sir Thomas More's life in my own remarks on this floor previously, I would like to actually read for the Record what was said by Sir Thomas More as conceived by Robert Bolt. He describes More's son-in-law as William Roper, as follows: William Roper, a stiff body and an immobile face with little imagination and moderate brain, but an all too consuming rectitude, which is his cross, his solace, and his hobby. That may very well apply to some of the individuals who are taking and twisting Bolt's words, particularly as paraphrased by Mr. Shippers. What actually takes place is More, in discussion with his daughter and with his wife and with his son-in-law, concerning the law. The daughter says at one point to him, ``Father, that man is bad,'' referring to another individual. Sir Thomas More said, ``There is no law against that.'' The reply from Mr. Roper is ``There is, God's law.'' More says, ``Then God can arrest him.'' Thinking that perhaps More is trying to set himself up above God's law with man's law, he remonstrates with More. And More says, ``Let me draw your attention to a fact. I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of the law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God.'' His daughter says to him, ``While you talk, he's gone,'' referring to the evil man to whom she had first referred. More says, ``And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law.'' His son-in-law says, ``So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law.'' And More said, ``Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?'' Roper said, ``I would cut down every law in England to do that.'' And More said, ``Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you, where you would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast--man's laws, not God's--and if you cut them down--and you're just the man to do it--do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.'' I suggest to Mr. Shippers what is at stake here is our law as embodied in the Constitution. The President, all of us, are fully entitled to the protection of that Constitution. It is not the President, it is not those on the Democratic side of the aisle in the Committee on the Judiciary deliberations that are trying to cut down the law. They are trying to protect the law. They are trying to see that the law is implemented the way it was written, and it was written to protect all of us. If we allow Mr. Shippers, or anyone like him, to cut down the protection of law, then how will we be protected in turn? Yes, it is more than just the President's right to the rule of law being at stake here. What is at stake is whether or not we will, in turn, defend those laws. Because in doing so, we defend ourselves. So, I recommend, Mr. Speaker, to you and all who are interested, that we take up Sir Thomas More's cross, the one he bore, the one which he paid his life for. And that was that we obey the law in such a way as not to lose our sense of humanity in the process. Mr. Speaker, I commend to you, and I commend to all, Mr. Bolt's ``A man for All Seasons.'' I commend to Mr. Shippers and his defenders that they not twist the words, but bring them into the reality that reflects the best that is in America and the best that is in our Constitution, and that is the protection of one and all.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to use the time of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) out of order.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, there are sometimes opportunities for us on this floor to enlighten ourselves and the public in a way that is not generally available under other means and other circumstances. This is one of those instances thanks to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough) in particular and young Hunter Scott. I am sure young Mr. Scott would be only too happy to have the accolades which have extended to him today be set aside if we could come to the kind of conclusion that we think the activity here today warrants. But that is not the case. Also I think, Madam Speaker, that we often find ourselves in a position where we are attempting to convey information not just to ourselves, but because we are the Congress of the United States, to the Nation as a whole, and sometimes in that process we forget that there are those who are impacted individually and collectively in the most personal way. And as the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) has indicated, we have, as a result of our residents in Hawaii, just one such instance. The son of the captain resides in our district and is known to the gentlewoman from Hawaii and myself; well, I guess all of her life and for the past 4 decades of my life, a wonderful gentleman, and gentleman is the appropriate word, I can assure my colleagues, who in some respects can be said to be a victim as well. As my colleagues know, fate is often cruel and history capricious and arbitrary in the way it is implemented, and so it probably seems to those who do not know the circumstances and the facts a situation in which one would expect the son of the captain that has to carry this burden of court-martial, expect the son to take this position of trying to vindicate the father and, therefore, be able to dismiss the factual circumstances around the incident, if we can call that tragedy such. So, while there was empathy and sympathy certainly by those of us who knew Kimo McVay, we understood as well, or thought we understood as well, that there was likely little that could be done about it, and it just goes to show that even though we by virtue of being Members of Congress are optimistic in nature, nonetheless it did not occur to us. Shame on us really. Shame on us. It did not occur to us that there was perhaps something that could be done. I have not thought about the biblical phrase, and a little child shall lead them, but it certainly jumped to the forefront of my thoughts today as I contemplated what to say at this particular moment. But we have all been admonished in a way, all brought up a little short to say yes, not only can an individual make a difference in the United States of America, but we should not become so jaded and so certain that we know how things are going to work as to forget that it is quite possible to bring to the attention of the people of this country an injustice and fully expect, as this child did; I think we sometimes forget that this is a child we are discussing here today; a child brought us all up short and said, ``Look you're not doing your duty, you're not paying the kind of attention that needs to be paid to these circumstances.'' And I suppose then, Madam Speaker, in conclusion I can say that it is perhaps somewhat to our credit then that when the information was presented to us and when we had to confront the work that was presented by this young man, we did in fact then move, and move expeditiously, and work in a nonpartisan basis to arrive at this point today. So I want to assure Kimo McVay, the son of Captain McVay, and I want to assure Hunter Scott that the Members of this Congress have now taken up this cause, will not lay it down until it comes to a successful conclusion, and we will see the day that justice will arrive and come down like a mighty river.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, first, may I express my gratitude to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fox) for his leadership. I think it is probably commonplace, Madam Speaker, that we extend gratitude to one another on the floor and, on occasion, it may seem to be almost perfunctory in nature. But as has been indicated by all of the speakers to this point on this bill that we are dealing here with issues of life and death. We are dealing with the most profound emotions, we are dealing with points of finality that go beyond philosophy, rhetoric or ideology. In that context and speaking as one who has been an officer of the court in my past professional life as a probation officer, having seen daily what police officers and what firefighters go through in terms of the anxiety brought to themselves and to their families, with the sure knowledge each time that they go from their homes and families that they face instances and circumstances, contexts and situations which may require of them literally the ultimate sacrifice of their life. Knowing that that is the milieu within which they conduct themselves, we find ourselves, I think, often supposedly dealing with ultimate things, if you will, and very heavy and profound matters at hand, but none of us can place ourselves in that position, except possibly only intellectually, until we recognize that this is something that is faced every day, every hour that someone is on the job. Madam Speaker, this bill, which was put forward by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fox) and with the very able assistance of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), who has also been acknowledged by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fox), as being crucial to getting us to this point. This bill expands the Federal Law Enforcement Dependent Assistance program to public safety officers. As has been indicated, it was established in 1996, and there are now, as the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) indicated, some 30 individuals under the Federal law which are now benefiting. It is an interesting word also, ``benefiting.'' This is a benefit that is hardly sought by any of these individuals or these families, and they all wish most deeply that they were not the recipients of what otherwise is seen as a solicitous term, ``beneficiary.'' There are some 55 others now, because we are extending this to the State and local level. We have talked often on this floor over the past several years about trying to extend the opportunity to the local level of decision-making. But as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fox) indicated to me when we first began to talk about it, not every jurisdiction has the financial means to enable them to see to the education of the children of those who may have fallen in the line of duty. What we are trying to do here is kind of equalize, if you will, the opportunity for us to show the gratitude that we all feel towards those who have put their lives literally on the line for us. This bill then provides a means to meet this vital need. In effect, what happens is that it provides educational assistance to the survivors of Federal law, that is to say the Federal law as it now exists is extended to provide assistance to the children of those killed or permanently and totally disabled in the line of duty. It was created to help these dependents of those killed in the line of duty or disabled to afford higher education, and it is, in fact, administered by the Bureau of Justice Assistance within the Department of Justice. We have worked very, very hard to see to it that this does not place any financial burden, as such, or more than has already existed to this point. In Hawaii, we have had only three police officers killed in the line of duty since 1991. We are fortunate that not more law enforcement officers and others have been killed to this time. Other jurisdictions have not been so lucky. So then, Madam Speaker, my point is, in expressing my gratitude, that this is not necessarily a noble goal, absent from a funding mechanism. The changes made to the bill enable the program to be properly funded so that children of fallen officers can receive higher education assistance. We can never compensate the children for the loss of a parent who died in the line of duty. The least we can do is have a program in place to assist them in meeting their educational goals. I, too, then, in conclusion, would like to thank the staffs, particularly those working with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fox) in his office, Laura Gerum in my office who has done absolutely superb work on this issue, unstinting in their dedication and focus. We are very, very grateful to those who see us to this point today. Madam Speaker, it but remains for me to thank all of those who will be voting for this bill. I hope it will be unanimous by this body.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, earlier this afternoon, when the House voted on a motion to adjourn, I was unavoidably detained. I was conducting a satellite teleconference with the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury to constituents in Honolulu discussing the financial crisis in East Asia and the International Monetary Fund. Had I been present, I would have voted no.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I would like to express my strong support for the Shimkus-McCarthy Biodiesel Provision in H.R. 4017. Biodiesel fuel is a renewable alternative fuel primarily derived from agricultural feedstock such as soybeans, canola, rapeseed, and even deep fryer fat. Biodiesel has many advantages as a renewable fuel resource. It reduces tailpipe emissions, visible smoke, and noxious odors and can be operated in conventional diesel engines with no engine modifications. Biodiesel can be blended with conventional diesel fuel and still achieve substantial emission reductions. Another advantage is that the primary by product of biodiesel is glycerine, which has numerous commercial applications from toothpaste to cough syrup. One example of the utility of biodiesel can be seen on the island of Maui, Hawaii. Maui was faced with used cooking oil disposal problems because of the shortage of landfill space. Pacific Biodiesel, a fuel manufacturing company on Maui, worked with island officials to identify ways to meet this challenge. Pacific Biodiesel processes recycled cooking oil into cleaner, safer diesel fuel. The Pacific Biodiesel plant has a production capability of 200,000 gallons of premium biodiesel fuel per year. All the fuel they process is derived from recycled vegetable oil and is biodegradable. On Maui, this fuel is used for transportation, heating, and air- conditioning. Boats and tourist hotel buses on the island use biodiesel as their fuel. The success of Pacific Biodiesel has potential as a model for other islands. It also shows that, by using biodiesel, we can reduce the environmental impact of diesel-powered vehicles, provide new outlets for agriculture, and create new jobs. Produced and used throughout Europe and in parts of Japan, this renewable energy source offers a host of environmental advantages that are gaining worldwide attention. I urge the House to pass H.R. 4017 and recommend it for quick consideration in the Senate.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) for their wise counsel and their ready availability to all the Members, including this Member, with respect to any aspect of our Committee on National Security reports and this conference report. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank as well to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), my subcommittee chairman and my friend. Unfortunately, he is not on the floor at the moment, but I hope that my good wishes and good feelings towards him will be conveyed. I thank him for his leadership and for the fair process by which he has handled the military construction portion of the Defense authorization bill. His collegial and bipartisan approach encourages and in fact has yielded an outcome which shuns parochialism and constantly strives for the good- government solutions that this bill represents to difficult funding issues. It is made even more difficult by the constrained fiscal environment which has been mentioned. Mr. Speaker, I will not take up the Members' time in repeating the details of the report, only to point out however that the budget adopted by the conferees represents a considerable effort in bettering the quality of life for our military personnel. A good portion of the $666 million that was added to the President's request for military construction is to be spent on the most intractable problem we face, military housing; $101 million towards improving existing family housing units and $153 million towards new barracks and dormitories. Quality of life of our military personnel will be improved as a result. Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my colleagues we are far from our goal of adequate housing. More spending is needed. As this bill goes forward, the condition of the military installation continues to deteriorate. We will be working on it. Though I support the bill, I want to express my continued concern that we are unable to assure a level playing field for small businesses. I have worked with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent) on the CLASS proposal in the House passed authorization, because it improves the quality of life again for our service members and maintains a level playing field for small businesses to compete in the forwarding of household goods. Unfortunately, in the end, we were not able to get agreement on this. I can assure my colleagues we will work to resolve this issue in the best interests of our men and women in the Armed Forces. Regrettably, also the Charter and Build provision was not included. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman) in particular for his steadfast resolution in this regard. The provision is good for America because it provides a means for the Navy to acquire the ships it needs to meet our strategic requirements and sustain the industrial base needed to produce them. The issue, I assure my colleagues, will be revisited until it is won. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for their leadership on this issue. I tell my colleagues that they can rest assured that I will continue to work with them on behalf of the strategic interests of the United States of America.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Chairman, it is very difficult to talk about the amendment which we have in front of us when the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) has brought up an entirely extraneous point. I hope the chairman will recognize this stuff and that this has nothing to do with the amendment. The estate that he is talking about is involved with a private school. We are talking about public funds here that go to public schools. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Bishop estate, with the Kamehameha school. None of this money goes to that school or to the estate. This is a completely extraneous issue, and I beg the Members, please, not to be, I will say misled, because maybe the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) has a misconception. I would be happy to discuss it with him at some other point. Our amendment has to do with this block grant proposal. I indicated to the chairman yesterday and to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) that we were not arguing with the block grant proposal. That is an argument for another day. What we are saying is that we will be eliminated. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) himself used the word ``eliminate'' because that was the object. We would be eliminated, as would the native Alaskans. So all we are asking for is consideration, not an exception but consideration to be included. If this amendment does not pass, the likelihood of our being able to be included in the block grant in any way that would allow us to adequately participate in any of these programs is virtually eliminated. I beg the Members, we can argue at length, and I would be happy to do it, not argue but discuss at length the efficacy of the gentleman from Ohio's (Mr. Boehner) remarks in another context. But with this particular amendment, I urge with all the sincerity that I can that we not confuse the issue of the public schools, the money to go to children that would otherwise not necessarily have the opportunity if the amendment does not pass.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I merely want to indicate that coming, as I do, from a State in which rural and urban constituencies meld into one another in ways that may not always be fully appreciated by the public at large, and representing the urban part of the State of Hawaii, I want to indicate that I am in full sympathy with that and want to express not only to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), but to all others who are finding themselves in this circumstance, that those of us who are working with sugar producers in the State of Hawaii fully understand what the implications are from foreign workers who are exploited and being utilized against American workers and against American growers, coming into the picture under adverse circumstances such as the gentleman has just outlined. And I want to assure my colleague that those of us from urban areas who understand that this is a necessity for an integrated approach on behalf of Americans, both rural and urban, it being necessary not just for their survival, but for the prosperity of the country are in full sympathy with him and want to work with him on it.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

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

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to indicate to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) that I have been listening to the very eloquent, I think ``plea'' is a fair word to say. In other words, that we are trying to get across what the difficulties are not only for the family farmer but for farming in general. I simply want to say that I believe another speaker had said that there was an appeal being made to individuals who may represent urban areas to understand what the implications are.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of my good friend and colleague, Congresswoman Patsy Mink's amendment. Her amendment increases funding for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights by $2.26 million, the amount requested in the President's budget. As my colleagues know, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is an independent, bipartisan agency established to monitor, investigate, and report on the status of civil rights protections in the United States. In recent years we have experienced a disturbing trend of increased hate crimes, racial violence, discrimination against the immigrant population, and an intolerance for those who are perceived as ``different'' because of their color, national origin, gender, religion, or disability. Now is the time to invest in a modest increase in the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. It is important that we assess the current trends which violate the civil rights of groups and individuals in this Nation. I urge my colleagues to support the Mink amendment to H.R. 4276.