Neil Abercrombie

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) would be kind enough to engage in a bit of a dialogue with me. I am sure that he would agree that the question of bundling contracts is of some concern to our small business constituents and friends, and I wonder if the gentleman could comment with respect to the study and the question of bundling contracts.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate that. But the intent here, and I guess I just want to make the intent clear for those who may be doing the study, the intent here is to also look at such questions of working something up so we get a series of $10,000 or 10,000 $100-contracts that could go to a fairly large corporation and cut out otherwise legitimate small business. I know that is not the intent of the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter). But we do not want to have a study that ends up in that fashion.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Obey motion to instruct the highway authorization conferees not to allocate veteran program benefits to offset part of the cost of the highway bill. We must recognize for the first time in 50 years the United States has realized a budget surplus. Although funding for the Social Security must be the highest priority, there should be sufficient funds for other important programs, such as the highway bill. I am deeply concerned this provision is an attempt to make the benefits of those who have served us so well in our fight for the preservation of freedom a repository to be tapped. The military encouraged the tobacco habit by issuing cigarettes to its members as part of their rations. The Services encouraged the smoking habit before they knew the consequences of this action. This provision as written could deny veterans medical health care. So how can we, as a nation which cherishes its democracy, not take responsibility for our action. We must also recognize that the Veterans Administration is being deliberate in granting service connected compensation for tobacco related illnesses. Veterans must prove that the addiction to nicotine in these cases occurred prior to separation from the service. To date there have been approximately 9,000 claims for tobacco related illness and of those 9,000, 4,000 have been denied; and a maximum of 299 allowed. We, as a nation owe a great debt of thanks to those who have served in our military and in return promised to provide for their medical needs for life. Let us not renege on our promise. Veterans did not question when they were asked to go into combat and risk their lives to defend this great nation and the value it still stands for. Veterans met the challenge laid before them and continue to contribute to the betterment of their communities. It is an egregious act to offset the BESTEA reauthorization bill on the backs of our faithful veterans who have defended us in our time of need. I support the Obey motion to instruct the BESTEA conferees to refrain in the use of the veteran compensation provision as an offset. To deny veterans compensation for tobacco related illness to pay for the transportation bill is an insult to those who stood in the gap; placing their lives on the line to preserve the freedom, this democracy, we so cherish. Let us search for a solution that keeps promises we made to veterans.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend Zachary Hicks, a student at Hawaii Baptist Academy in Honolulu, who recently won the 1998 Voice of Democracy broadcast scriptwriting contest for Hawaii. Each year, the Veterans of Foreign Wars and its Ladies Auxiliary sponsor the Voice of Democracy contest to recognize writing and oratorical skills of students. Zachary Hicks related the democracy demonstrations of Tianamen Square in the People's Republic of China to the freedoms to enjoy and the need to exercise freedom of speech. I would like to share the script with the House and America, Mr. Speaker, which I am submitting. I am certain Leon and Brenda Hicks, Zac's parents, as well as his teachers and fellow students at Hawaii Baptist Academy, have great pride in Zac and his accomplishment. ``My Voice in Our Democracy'' (By Zachary Hicks) Not long ago, a number of young men and women broke out in protest of a government they did not believe in. With fear overpowered by conviction, these students stared communism in the face and said, ``We will no longer be shut up, pushed down, and unheard.'' That night in Tianamen Square, the cries for a democracy rang out loud and clear, yet they soon would be replaced by different cries. With hearts of fire, the students would not back down to words of warning. The air of freedom was faintly tangible but soon dissipated as the piercing crack of gunfire drove fear back into the hearts of the young people. Shot down . . . beaten . . . imprisoned . . . in one way or another they were all silenced. And the freedom, once so close, was now ripped from their hands. This tragedy can conjure up a lot of emotions. For me, all I can do is feel grateful. Surely I have taken for granted the freedom of a democracy. I have the privilege to stand up and not be pushed down. I don't have to look over my shoulder in fear every time I speak up about the government. I have a voice. But what is so beautiful about America's democracy is that this voice is just as important, just as valid as the next man's. Though led by presidents, governors, senators, and representatives, I have just as much power to speak out as they do. My voice matters. Our forefathers designed the United States Constitution to keep the government from ever becoming so powerful, so tyrannical, that I no longer have the freedom to speak my mind. At the same time, the constitution keeps me in line and helps remind me of what is important to our democracy, so that I fight for ideas that are true, right, and noble. Personally, I've only recently begun to see how powerful my voice is, even though it is just one. A project was assigned in my political science class in which I needed to interview various state representative and senators. I was surprised at how easy it was to schedule an appointment with an elected official. When I was sitting in the office of my representative, my eyes were opened to the power of my own voice. I used to believe that my voice meant nothing because I wasn't old enough to vote. But what is amazing to me now is that I'm able to walk straight into our state's capital building, climb a few stairs, enter right into an office of a senator or representative, and explain to them exactly what I believe and why I believe it. Not only that, our government allows what I say to be taken into consideration. I can persuade others to take up my passion, believe what I believe, and push for a change. Though funded in basic principles, democracy is not set in stone. If I don't agree with something. I have the ability to work to change it. America, the world's largest democracy, will take time to listen to what I have to say. Because my voice in our democracy matters so much, I hold a tremendous respect for the United States of America. I see the value in a peaceful transition of leadership. I see the value of a ``majority rules'' policy. I see the value of my voice. Therefore, I will not sit back when I have such freedom in my grasp. I will use my voice to make our democracy a better place to be. In the words of Edward Everett Hale, ``I am only one, but still I am one . . I cannot do everything, but I can do something. . . and what I can do, I should do . . . and, with the help of God, I will do.''

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my reluctant support of H.R. 3809. There are many good provisions in the bill which mark an escalation in our war against drug smuggling and out fight against the use of illegal drugs in our society. I support the war against drugs. However, I am very concerned about the harmful provisions contained in this bill that can be counterproductive in that they erode the working conditions of the Customs employees who are on the front lines of this war. It is very unfortunate that this bill contains language that would permit the Customs Commissioner to abrogate the collective bargaining agreements his agency has reached with employees and which are currently in effect. Not only is the provision blatantly unfair to the employees of the Customs Service, but it is an attempt to set a precedent for undermining labor-management relations between the federal government and its unions. This can have a serious detrimental effect on the morale, and consequently the effectiveness, of the people who fight on the front lines of this war against drugs. Congress should not, except perhaps under the most extraordinary circumstances, enact legislation to alter collective bargaining agreements. Although wanting to make our borders more secure against illegal drug importation is a highly desirable goal, it should not be used to disguise a political attack on dedicated Customs Service personnel. If the Customs Service needs additional resources to successfully accomplish its mission, I am willing to help find additional funds for that purpose. If we are serious about curbing drug smuggling and illegal drug usage in this country, we must dedicate the necessary federal resources instead of undercutting the personnel we depend on to carry out these policies. I will support H.R. 3809 to move it along in the legislative process, but I strongly urge that the anti-collective bargaining provisions be dropped from this bill. Congress needs to get into the business of passing legislation that will keep drugs out of this country, not assault those who are the principal soldiers in the battle.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand the Asian American and Pacific Islander Journal of Health here from the autumn issue in 1993. It addresses the health status of Kanaka Maoli, the indigenous Hawaiians. It is written by my good friend Dr. Richard Kekuni Blaisdell. In the process of reviewing this, Mr. Speaker, you will find that the purpose is to summarize the current health status of the Kanaka Maoli, the indigenous Hawaiian people, with historical background, the underlying factors responsible for the indigenous Hawaiian health plight and recommendations. The principal findings, Mr. Speaker, are that the indigenous Hawaiians continue to have the worst health and socioeconomic indicators of the various ethnic groups who call their home Hawaii: cardiovascular disorders, cancer, diabetes, obstructive lung diseases, maternal and infant ill health, alcohol problems, obesity, major life- style risk factors, societal factors such as depopulation, foreign transmigration, colonial exploitation, cultural conflict and racism. Since 1990, Mr. Speaker, as a result of our native Hawaiian health programs funded here in the Congress and under our auspices, native Hawaiian communities have established five island-wide native Hawaiian health care systems to improve availability, accessibility, and acceptability of health services to all of the indigenous Hawaiian people, to provide them with resources. The health status is a grim one, Mr. Speaker, and I have to bring to your attention and to the rest of my colleagues the important matters which we have been addressing by congressional action and are now compromised. The House Committee on the Budget yesterday released a proposed budget for the Federal Government for the coming year. Mr. Speaker, I am saddened, not just outraged, but saddened by the effort contained in that proposal to eliminate funding for the native Hawaiian health care programs. Why the leadership of the Committee on the Budget and the leadership, Mr. Speaker, in the majority Republican Conference, has chosen to attack native Hawaiian health courtrooms is beyond me. The program addresses the documented needs of Hawaii's native citizens in a culturally relevant context. Of all of the races of people in the islands of Hawaii, the native Hawaiian people have had the most difficult times in health and social indicators. Why it is a position of the Republican majority to attack native Hawaiians is beyond my grasp at this time, Mr. Speaker. They are hurting people in the lowest socioeconomic status with the highest overall mortality rate, the highest cancer mortality rate, the highest accident rate, the highest years of productive life lost to chronic disease, the highest infant mortality rate. I could go on with this, Mr. Speaker. It is a litany that we are trying to overcome. These grim statistics can be attributed to the imposition of foreign cultures and practices upon the native Hawaiian people. Only since the 1988 introduction of the native Hawaiian health program have we begun to turn these statistics around. We need the budget for it, and we have achieved a balanced Federal budget in the process. I voted consistently to achieve that goal. Mr. Speaker, I will end my remarks now, but will put forward the statistics as well as the background on the proposal to end these programs for native Hawaiians by the majority. I hope, Mr. Speaker, by the time we finish our budget proposal that we will be able to reverse this proposal.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. And in this context, in order to provide for this we have to understand, there will be a significant change in the very context within which we will have an Armed Forces. For example, there will be ships in the near future, this is not something that is put off into Star Trek time or some imaginary world of science fiction, but right now we are developing ships, are we not, that will drastically reduce the personnel that will be on those ships, but drastically increase the amount of sophisticated technology necessary to bring these ships on line and into service.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, in that context, then, I think the gentleman would agree that we have to find a funding mechanism that will not, as the gentleman indicated, cannibalize one program at the expense of another. I am sure he would agree with that. I also think he would agree that what we face right now, perhaps even more importantly, reflecting back on the comments of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), if we fail to find ways to fund adequately our procurement, our research, our development, our weapons systems and our acquisition of those systems, if we fail that we will hurt readiness. We will hurt the capacity of the individuals and the groups who make up our Armed Services to be able to prepare themselves for the contingencies that they might face, and that in fact is where we find ourselves today. So I want to conclude, Mr. Speaker, thanking the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Weldon) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) for the opportunity to participate with them and indicate as a member of the Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities and the Subcommittee on Military Research and Development, that I recognize fully the necessity of finding the proper funding mechanism and the proper funding balance in order to provide a defense that we can say with full confidence to the American people we will be able to provide for the security interests of this Nation.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. And in order to accomplish this we will have to have a testing and training range. Now, in this instance I happen to be familiar with it because it involves the Pacific Missile Testing Range in Hawaii in the Pacific. The necessity is, is it not, to upgrade these facilities to prepare us for the missile testing that will take place within the context of a Navy and Army and an Air Force which will have next-generation capabilities, not yet in existence but in process of coming on line now?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding to me. I am delighted to have the opportunity to be here with my colleagues on the Committee on National Security, most particularly with the chairman of our Subcommittee on Military Research and Development, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon). As the gentleman has indicated, our efforts here on the committee and the subcommittees which makes it up are of a bipartisan nature. It has been my honor and privilege over the years to serve under Mr. Aspin and Mr. Dellums and now the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence). During that time, I think that we have grown in our respect for one another and certainly I want to acknowledge the commitment that has been made by all of the Members, regardless of their party and background, to the security interests of this Nation. Mr. Speaker, there is a popular fashion in political circles these days with respect to the idea of limited service in the Congress. That, I suppose, has its place in the discussions that ensue throughout the Nation as to how we can best serve our country and our national interests. But I can assure my colleagues that with respect to our national security interests and the defense interests of this country, what is required is a commitment and a dedication of years, I might even say decades standing, in order to be able to provide the broadest possible umbrella of knowledge and perspective as we come to these very crucial decisions by our Nation as we enter the next century. Mr. Speaker, I dare say, not speaking for Chairman Spence by any stretch of the imagination, that in his 28 years of service here to the Nation and service to our committee, that even today he feels there is much to be learned, much that we have to share with one another in order to come to a proper perspective. And why? The reason is that we do in fact have 435 votes in this House, 218 votes to make a majority. Those who say that votes do not count, those who say that this is just business as usual, those who denigrate the Congress of the United States, let alone the House, and more particularly those who do not understand that when it comes to the security interests of this Nation, that we have to have knowledgeable, dedicated people who are on a nonpartisan basis going to pursue what those interests are and how to achieve them. If we do not have that understanding, then we are doing a disservice to this Nation. Now, for the record, I would like to indicate that the Committee on National Security approximates, I would say, approximately 10 percent of the House of Representatives and I think represents a very broad perspective, probably reflecting the ideological and philosophical commitments of the House of Representatives as a whole. In that context what we have is individuals assigned to committees who then make it their business to immerse themselves into the business of that committee. I am going to focus this evening just particularly on the subcommittee on which I am privileged to serve under the chairmanship of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon). That is the Subcommittee on Military Research and Development. Now, on the surface it sounds pretty simple. We do the research and then we develop from that research. But let me just read a summary of today's action that was taken in committee, a summary of the bill language: Navy mine countermeasures program management; future aircraft carrier transition technologies; the manufacturing technology program; national missile defense policy; limitation on the funding of medium extended air defense systems, the MEAD system that the gentleman referred to; funding for the cooperative ballistic missile defense programs; the counterproliferation support; and the ballistic missile program elements. Mr. Speaker, I can say these things and they roll off of my tongue and my colleagues are familiar with what they mean. But the implications of this are stunning in terms of the dollar value and, of course, in terms of the strategic value associated with the national interests of this Nation and in fact the security interests of the world. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, who I would venture to say, I think without contradiction, is the leading exponent and expert, certainly congressional expert, with respect to missile defense, someone who I might say is always prepared, would agree that unless and until we are prepared just in one context that I will mention alone, unless we are prepared to deal with missile testing as well as training associated with the weapons systems that we are acquiring, the weapons systems we are researching, the weapons systems we are developing, unless we are prepared to deal with the missile testing element in that, we will not be prepared to move forward in meeting our strategic national interests. We will be unprepared. Now, it sounds strange. How can we possibly not be prepared with billions of dollars at stake, with years and years of research, with all kinds of development capabilities, major corporations, in fact international corporations the size of which will almost beggar the imagination of the ordinary citizen contemplating them, how could we not possibly be prepared? The reason is that the technology involved just in the recitation of some of the program elements that I have just outlined, the technology involved is so expensive, the technology involved is so complicated and detailed, the sophistication, Mr. Speaker, is almost beyond comprehension. I just recently visited the Comanche helicopter development facility in Florida, and asked just to have a briefing, Mr. Speaker, on the capacity of the helicopter not to have information intercepted, on being able to have the communications system, a highly sophisticated system, not be compromised in any way. This is very, very important, Mr. Speaker, because if we do not have this, if there is not a clear understanding of what the technology is and how we can protect the communications interests associated with the Comanche helicopter, it becomes available to those who could do us harm or wish us ill in the future. Mr. Speaker, we have to deal with questions of technology transfer. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Chairman Spence) know, I am, shall we say, an adamant opponent of the transfer of technology for profit's sake, presumed profit's sake, maybe individual dollar profits for some corporations and individuals, but certainly not for the profit of the interests of the United States. I oppose that. Mr. Speaker, the dollars that have been spent and the time and the energy and the intellectual input that has gone into just the communication system of the Comanche helicopter system is such that a full appreciation for the work of the committee I think would follow from any honest person's evaluation of what we are trying to accomplish. So as we contemplate research and development, I think that we have to take into account, Mr. Speaker, how are we going to do the funding? How are we going to achieve this? What is happening right now, and if the gentleman from Pennsylvania would care to engage in a bit of dialogue with me on it at this point, I think can elucidate this a little and illustrate it. Mr. Speaker, I realize the time is short so I will try to make this a summation. In my service on the committee, in trying to deal with issues, for example, like missile testing, the assumption I think of most Americans is that there is an adequate missile defense right now to meet any challenge that might come to the United States. But the fact are that those systems do not yet exist?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, today I call on both the Democratic and Republican leaders of the House to pass the $18 billion International Monetary Fund as soon as possible. It is urgent for Hawaii's citizens, workers, and the businesses that I represent. In early winter 1997, economies in South Korea, Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia collapsed. The effects on Hawaii have stifled recovery from the deepest recession the State has experienced in 50 years. Problems began when the Japanese economy faltered in 1991. Tourism and direct foreign investment plunged. Devaluation of the yen and now other Asian currencies have resulted in the Hawaii recession. Unemployment is at 6.5 percent. And by the way, Mr. Speaker, the 6.5 percent may not seem very high to some others in the country who have experienced much greater percentages in times past, but for Hawaii that is a very, very high number. Tourism last month dropped 14 percent from March a year ago. Costs for the Japanese tourist or businessperson are more than 50 percent higher than they were in 1991. Investment decline has resulted in construction contract receipts falling 40 percent since 1991. Business and individual bankruptcy are at record high levels. Business, labor, industry, and government in Hawaii are working on solutions but cannot provide direct economic aid to Asian countries or restructure Asian economies. Only Congress can and must do that in conjunction with the IMF. Current funding proposals have been derailed over unrelated issues, such as abortion. There are adequate vehicles for dealing with those issues, and the leadership should drop them and bring an IMF bill to the House floor immediately. Economists indicate it will take 1 to 3 years for Asian economies to recover, even with IMF aid. Although there is no quick fix, we must start now, because Hawaii and the U.S. economies are being damaged by inaction. And I stress the U.S. economy in general as well as that of Hawaii in particular, Mr. Speaker. Knowing the relationship between IMF and America's foreign trade, which includes tourism and the movement of investment capital, President Clinton recently said that IMF funding was something ``we owe to the future of this country and to our children.'' That certainly applies to Hawaii. That is why I wrote today to the Speaker and Democratic leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) urging immediate action. I have the letter here, Mr. Speaker, and I will submit it as part of my remarks. Threat of economic destabilization remains, and delay is only intensifying the problem. The IMF must be allowed to do its job, including helping restructure the economic systems in Asia which resulted in the need for the multibillion-dollar bailout. But the IMF cannot do its job without the funding necessary to stabilize these economies. Mr. Speaker, we must not put America's economic well-being at risk by ignoring the Asian financial crisis. We must not put Hawaii's economic well-being at risk by ignoring the Asian financial crisis. I urge that the IMF bill, the International Monetary Fund bill, be brought to the House floor immediately. Mr. Speaker, the letter I earlier referred to is as follows: Neil Abercrombie, 1st District, Hawaii, May 5, 1997. Hon. Newt Gingrich, U.S. Capitol Building, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker: On behalf of the people of Hawaii who have been suffering through the toughest economic times in more than half a century, I urge that the funding bill be brought to the House floor expeditiously. I am deeply concerned about the failure of the House of Representatives to act on the $18 billion in emergency funding for the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to deal with the Asian financial crisis. As you may know, during the last quarter of 1997, a financial crisis swept through several Asian countries. In response, the IMF came up with proposals to strengthen the economies of Thailand, South Korea, Indonesia and Malaysia and, in the process, reduce the threat of destabilization to the rest of Asia and the Pacific Rim. In this regard, it is vital that Congress provide the IMF with the necessary resources to adequately deal with the Asian financial crisis. Failure to enact IMF funding potentially jeopardizes our nation's ability to sustain economic growth. In Hawaii, the effects are more immediate. The Asian financial crisis, combined with the problems of the Japanese economy, has already had a negative economic impact on the state. Continued neglect by Congress will exacerbate this situation and make it more difficult for Hawaii to deal with its greatest economic challenge since statehood. Since 1991, Hawaii's economy has been stagnant. Since that time, the bankruptcy rate has skyrocketed and our unemployment rate has grown and now ranks among the highest in the nation. The primary reason for Hawaii's economic problems can be attributed to the decline in travel and tourism from Japan and other Asian countries as well as the consequences of direct foreign capital being withdrawn from investment in the state. In March, the number of visitors to Hawaii was down by 40,000 compared to the same time last year. The most dramatic loss was in the number of East-bound visitors from Asia which declined 14 per cent. Equally profound is the impact of the Yen currency devaluation. Today, it costs a Japanese tourist or businessperson 50 percent more to stay in Hawaii than it did in 1991. No sector of Hawaii's economy has been left untouched. Take for instance the construction industry; contract receipts for construction fell in 1997 to $2.9 billion, down from $3.2 billion in 1996, continuing into a 40 percent decline since 1991. Emergency funding for the IMF will not provide a quick fix to the Asian financial crisis. The situation in Asia developed over decades and economists have indicated that the IMF-supervised policy adjustments will take one to three years before they take hold. Yet, passage of the $18 billion in emergency financing for the IMF funding is a necessary step in resolving the crisis. I fear that inaction by Congress will only intensify the problem. I understand there are many members of Congress who hold strong views on issues which have become inextricably and unfairly linked to the IMF funding bill. Congress has many legislative vehicles with which to deliberate issues such as the abortion policies of other nations. Holding the IMF funding hostage to unrelated issues is not fair and runs counterproductive to the efforts of all sectors of Hawaii society--business, industry, labor and government--to resolve our economic problems. Although there are steps that all of those parties can and are taking, it is far beyond their authority to address the need to restructure economies of Asian countries. That is the proper role for the IMF, Congress, and the federal government. I strongly urge that you and the other members of the Republican leadership take immediate steps to resolve the emergency funding issues for the IMF. We should not put the well-being of our nation's economy at risk by ignoring the Asian financial crisis. Emergency funding for the IMF cannot be held captive to unrelated issues. Sincerely, Neil Abercrombie Member of Congress

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call my colleagues' attention to a serious crime being perpetrated against some of our most vulnerable citizens: mail fraud and telemarketing scams targeting senior citizens. In my own district, one gentleman pleaded with me, ``The mail is still coming. I don't have the money to send.'' Some companies peddling questionable products or promoting unwinnable contests make a living out of targeting senior citizens. It is estimated that telemarketing fraud robs Americans of at least $40 billion a year. The actual number may be much higher, as telemarketing fraud has always been a part of our Nation's underground economy. Not all losses have been clearly documented. Some consumers are too embarrassed to report that they have been defrauded or they do not recognize the extent of the fraud that has been perpetrated upon them. Mr. Speaker, I held a meeting on this issue in my district recently; and I was appalled at the number of people in the audience who came up to me after a discussion led by members of the FBI, led by members of the Post Office, the Postal Inspector Section, after the recitation of statistics and perspective by myself, and yet asked me afterwards if I could give them my personal assistance in contacting some of the fraudulent companies to see if it was not possible for them to perhaps receive their prizes or be acknowledged for the funds that they had been sending. Mr. Speaker, I can assure my colleagues that this is a heart- wrenching situation. It is taking place all over the country, and it prompts me to rise today to extend these remarks to my colleague and to the other Members. Older Americans, Mr. Speaker, are the target of many fraudulent telemarketers because they are generally at home more often than younger persons, they may be more trusting. That is certainly the case with those that I spoke with recently in Honolulu, Mr. Speaker, and may look upon a smooth-talking telemarketer as a trusted friend rather than someone preying upon their life savings. These fraudulent activities are a disgrace, and we should do all we can to stop them. On April 8, 1998, as I indicated, I sponsored a mail and telemarketing fraud briefing for senior citizens in my district in Honolulu, Hawaii. This education national briefing was designed to give vulnerable senior citizens a fighting chance against an industry designed to victimize them. John Gillis, a supervisory special agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Honolulu, and Byron Dare, a postal inspector for the United States Postal Service in Honolulu, presented testimony on their agencies' efforts to combat mail and telemarketing fraud and educated seniors on how to avoid becoming victims of such schemes. Mr. Speaker, I most sincerely urge my colleague and other Members to take advantage of FBI offices in our districts, as well as postal service inspectors in our district, to hold similar briefings for senior citizens in our areas. Senior citizens need to be protected from these scam artists, and one of the best ways to do this is educate them on how fraudulent information is presented. I am preparing legislation on this issue. I am already a cosponsor of the Protection against Scams on Seniors Act, H.R. 3134. This bill authorizes the Administration on Aging to conduct an outreach program to educate seniors on telemarketing fraud. I plan to continue my outreach efforts to reach Hawaii's elderly population from falling prey to these unscrupulous mail and telemarketers. I also support the efforts of Federal agencies and private organizations who have been actively involved in this issue. The American Association of Retired Persons, the AARP, has created a profile of telemarketing and mail fraud victims. The profile shows the average victim is not only an older American, but relatively affluent, well-educated, well-informed, and socially active in his or her community. AARP's research indicates that the critical difference between victims and nonvictims is their ability to recognize that telemarketing fraud is a crime. Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that. The key here, the critical difference between being a victim and a nonvictim is their ability to recognize that telemarketing fraud is a crime. Many people find themselves the victim of fraud and do not recognize that it is, in fact, criminal activity, and there is something they can do about it. AARP has produced educational materials in English and Spanish. If seniors would contact the AARP in their area, they will be happy to provide them with materials, telephone numbers, et cetera, which will aid them. The AARP has produced educational materials in English and Spanish that inform recipients of telemarketing calls about ways to distinguish between legitimate and fraudulent calls; how to respond safely to calls without becoming a victim; and how to report suspicious calls. I am making sure this material is available in all the senior centers in Honolulu. In Hawaii, state laws on telemarketing require specific disclosures by the telemarketer regarding prize and gift promotions. Our state law also provides consumers with a right to sue for damages and obtain relief on his or her own initiative, aside from any state action. Maximum penalties for a violation of Hawaii's telemarketing laws are set at $10,000. Uncovering these schemes, returning money owed to its victims, and educating seniors are worthwhile efforts I will continue to pursue. I am happy to have the support and knowledge of many organizations who also promote these goals. I will continue to educate senior citizens in my district of this $40 billion rip-off. I hope my fellow Members of Congress will do the same. With a concerted effort, we can protect our senior citizens and put mail and telemarketing con-artists out of business.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I was privileged to be on the floor of the House of Representatives when the President's budget passed in 1993, that budget at the time denounced so severely by many critics of the President and what he was trying to accomplish. I think, some 5 years later, we found that all of the goals have been in fact accomplished with respect to balancing the budget; and, most particularly, we find ourselves in a situation with low interest rates and the ability of people to take advantage of the home interest deduction they might not otherwise have had. As a result, Mr. Speaker, I hope there is a recognition that this was the right course to take, that the American people have been the beneficiaries, that home ownership has been advanced, and that these 5 years provide a record of accomplishment of which we can all be proud. Mr. Speaker, Today, many if not every Member of Congress is going to receive a visit by realtors from our districts. I look forward to meeting today with the members of the Hawaii Association of Realtors on their annual trip to Washington. I know one of their top priorities is preserving the home mortgage interest deduction. I stand with them completely on this issue. As the House moves closer to developing a tax bill in the months ahead, it is vitally important that we preserve the mortgage interest deduction. It is fundamental of fulfilling the American dream of home ownership. I am concerned that proposals for a flat tax or a national sales tax would endanger the mortgage interest deduction. The mortgage interest deduction in important to Hawaii, where the average cost of a single family home is $312,000. It is estimated that eliminating the mortgage interest deduction could cause the value of existing homes to drop between 20-30 percent. As we in Hawaii face our greatest economic challenge since statehood, elimination of the mortgage interest deduction would be a disaster. Homeowners would suffer a disastrous loss of equity. Thousands of realtors, construction workers, and employees of financial institutions would lose their livelihoods. Mr. Speaker, I urge may colleagues to join me in fighting any attempt to eliminate the home mortgage deduction.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Illegal Foreign Contributions Act, H.R. 34. This bill, if enacted, would ban contributions to federal election campaigns by legal permanent residents. I believe this would be a colossal mistake and a constitutional blunder. This bill would restrict the First Amendment free speech rights of Legal Permanent Residents. These residents are required to perform citizenship obligations, such as registering for the military draft and serving in the armed forces, but we would deny them the basic citizenship rights we require them to defend. Consistently throughout federal constitutional law, Legal Permanent Residents have all First Amendment freedoms of full U.S. citizens. This has been consistently upheld by the federal courts and the Supreme Court. H.R. 34 would deliberately abridge and deny those rights in the name of campaigning finance reform. It would trample on the constitutional rights of hundreds of thousands of people without justification. The bill picks out a specific group of people and says we are going to prevent you from expressing your political views. This bill is a gag of political expression in the disguise of campaign reform. The reality is that hard-working, tax-paying, military-serving individuals are being told they can have no say over who is elected to determine the policies that determines their fates and lives. Mr. Speaker, I also fear that legislation that singles out specific groups of people for treatment different than that of citizens will lead us down a road to finding scapegoats when there are failings in our government and society. This is a dangerous precedent, and I urge my colleagues to think carefully before they cast their vote on H.R. 34, and to vote against this ill-conceived ``reform''.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, during Rollcall Vote No. 82 on H.R. 34 I inadvertently recorded my vote as yes when I intended to vote no.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1151, the Credit Union Membership Access Act, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the bill today. Development of this bill is the product of long and hard work, not only by the House Committee on Banking which has brought the bill to the House floor, but by millions of individual members of credit unions across the country who let Congress know of the importance of the Supreme Court decision on this matter earlier, and of the need to move H.R. 1511 as a result of that decision. The legislation we are considering today is a compromise that ends a dispute largely between credit unions and the nation's banks. Federal regulators had interpreted federal law to allow multiple common bond memberships, and one result was a rapid increase in credit union membership. The increase in credit union membership came at a time when there was an expansion in the scope and type of services they had traditionally provided members, resulting in competition with commercial banks, thrift institutions and other financial services. Congress is now in the process of redefining the nature of all financial institutions so it is timely that we make a specific decision on the nature and scope of credit unions and the services they provide. And I believe enactment is H.R. 1151 is essential for competition with the new types of financial institutions now becoming a reality with the distinctions ending between banks, insurance firms, securities and commercial businesses. This bill is about making sure consumers have a choice, today and in the future. With a population of 1.3 million people, Hawaii has more than 550,000 credit union members in 113 affiliated credit unions. Hawaii's traditional cultural values have resulted in one of the strongest credit union movements in America. Many first generation immigrants brought with them a system called tanomoshi. Workers and families in sugar cane and pineapple plantations in Hawaii pooled savings from which loans were provided for emergencies or more often for one family to start a business. When the business prospered, the funds would be repaid to the group and it would revolve to another family. In this way, much of the business, middle class in Hawaii developed from its plantation agriculture economy. The reality is that we had credit unions in Hawaii long before the mainland. It was simply called tanomoshi instead of credit unions. This is a grass-roots democratic movement built on the foundation of self-help and group identity. H.R. 1151 allows current credit union members to continue their membership. New membership groups must have less than 3,000 common bond members at the time of joining, and groups will be within reasonable proximity to the credit union. However, there are circumstances when even these restrictions can be waived. It is important to credit union members as well as to their competitors that depositor insurance provisions be strengthened under the bill. It would also require that ``persons of modest means'' within each credit union membership field be served. Mr. Speaker, I believe H.R. 1151 is a solid, reasonable and responsible compromise. We must have a healthy and vigorous credit union movement in the 21st Century to meet the needs of individuals as well as the need of the nation for a diverse, competitive financial industry.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against this bill, and reluctantly because of my friendship and high regard for the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), which I think goes without saying, as well as my regard for the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson). Nonetheless, I feel, Mr. Speaker, that it is imperative that everyone recognize, as has been indicated by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) our ranking member on the Committee on National Security, that this particular purchase has not come through the procedures and hearings in National Security. I believe we should properly have jurisdiction in this regard. We are criticized constantly for having a defense budget that is not adequate, or we are criticized for the transfer of technology for profit as opposed to actually meeting the defense interest of this country, and I most certainly understand the idea that we have to defend ourselves against drugs. But in this instance we have advanced navigational and plotting systems associated with the Blackhawk that I believe may very well fall into the category of transfer of technology which many members of the Committee on National Security on a bipartisan basis oppose. Now, I believe that we will be taking funds away from Peru and Bolivia. Whether that is true or not, I am not exactly certain because we have not had the hearings on it. Colombia, as has been well stated, already has a minimum capacity apparently at the present time to deal with the Black Hawk program. Yet, I understand that Colombia is cutting its defense budget. Now, if we are to form that budget forum, I think that we need to make that part of the dialogue that takes place in the Committee on National Security. Black Hawks are used by our frontline troops. The administration, I understand, is indicating that it will propose super Huey helicopters that are adequate for the drug missions, that can be utilized for night vision, for example, and that the situation now about insurgency requires that we take very, very careful notice of whether or not the military utilizing these helicopters would be people who are actually going to take up the cause against drug trafficking. The corruption factor, aside from those who are heroically trying to pursue it right now within the Colombian military, is a very real question that needs to be answered. Now, we have already had arguments on this floor or discussion on this floor today about the capabilities of the Black Hawk versus the Huey helicopter, the survivability of the Black Hawks versus the Huey helicopter. That is the proper jurisdiction and purview of the Committee on National Security. I think that we need to take it up in that context. My understanding is, as well, that the administration is claiming, as has been asserted elsewhere, that we will be taking away from the budget allotted to counternarcotics programs elsewhere in Latin and South America. Now, Mr. Speaker, that may be the case, or it may not. I am not entirely certain. But I do know this, that in order for us to proceed on these matters, I implore my colleagues, please make these kinds of things a matter of joint jurisdiction with the Committee on National Security which sets the policy here. I think there is a fundamental point not just of procedure in the House, but of acting in the best interests of the security interests of the United States by asking that this be done. If we are going to simply move to the appropriations committees and have the appropriations committees make these decisions with respect to expenditures, how are we supposed to put together a rational national defense policy in coordination with the international relations aspect that we need to sustain and maintain? I think, Mr. Speaker, that the distinguished chairman, and I mean that in every sense, that is not a pro forma utilization of the word by me. The distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations would agree that those of us who are on the national security side of policy have worked with him in the past and in every instance where he has requested it. He knows that not only myself, but every member of the Committee on National Security would be willing to work with him in any instance where the international relations and national security interests of this country are at stake. On that basis, I would appeal, then, to the chairman of the Committee on International Relations to recognize that our interest is legitimate and that we want to work very closely with him to have a resolution of this matter that would be in the interest of everyone, Colombians and the people of the United States alike.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I do not dispute any of that. As I said, I have great respect for the gentleman. However, we battle every day in the Committee on National Security for those millions of dollars. We are not able to maintain our own troops. We are not able to train our own troops. We are not able to equip our own troops. We are not able to maintain quality of life for our own troops. I am quite willing, in fact I will state that I am prepared today to work with the gentleman to try to accomplish this, but the gentleman is making a case for having joint consideration by the Committee on National Security and the Committee on International Relations so that our own forces can be adequately funded as well. I thank the gentleman for his kind indulgence.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I began my political career after I left the University of Hawaii, was teaching at Leeward Community College, had little or nothing in the way of fiscal resources. We had the backing of young people, ran a grass roots campaign in 1974 when we had campaign expenditure limits. No matter how wealthy one was, and I was up against candidates who had great wealth available to them, we could not spend any more than the amount that was allocated. We will not have an opportunity today to even debate whether we can get democracy back to the ordinary person. That is why we have such cynicism in the electorate today. And the approach today, and I ask my Republican colleagues to take this into account, I do not want to make this a partisan issue; but if we put this bill forward today with the two-thirds requirement when the membership is not even here, it will add to the cynicism of the American people that prevents young people from being able to run for office or even consider it. Please do not move forward with this bill today.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I was first elected to the State house of representatives in the State of Hawaii in 1974, when we had campaign expenditure limitations. I found myself in a contest with very wealthy people and a high-ranking bank official; I had to depend upon the goodwill of many of the young people who supported me. We did grass- roots efforts. I would like to have the opportunity for any citizen to be able to run for office, as I did, and have an opportunity to be elected. That is why it is so important for us to take up these various forms of campaign finance reform. I do not pretend to have the final answer, and I do not think that the final answer necessarily exists in all of these bills, but surely we deserve the opportunity to vote on it. In this particular instance where campaign finance reform is concerned, we have seen over and over again the press saying that the Congress failed to do it, or the House failed to do it. In this instance, I hope it will be noted by the public and by the press that takes this information to the public that it is Mr. Gingrich and the Republican leadership which is thwarting the opportunity for us to be able to vote on campaign finance reform. Please give us that opportunity. Let the ordinary, average citizen have a chance again in this democracy.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lamar Smith), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, for his work in developing this important legislation to extend the visa waiver pilot program. I would like to add parenthetically, Mr. Chairman, my particular thanks to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) for his kindness, courtesies, and his consideration of the issues that I brought before him. He has been accommodating in listening to concerns and suggestions those of us from Hawaii have expressed to him through hearings last year in which Hawaii Lieutenant Governor Mazie Hirono presented testimony for the State, as well as through discussions we have had in the Committee on the Judiciary's consideration of the bill, and in subsequent discussion. I am engaging the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Smith) today to further emphasize the importance not only of the changes the committee has recommended, but also of the need to expand the number of countries allowed to participate in the expedited entry procedures accorded visa waiver pilot program participants. The committee has wisely recommended that the INS undertake compiling visa overstay rates for those countries of which we still require visas for entering the country, and I think the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) has made quite extensive remarks already on that subject. I am certain that the Committee on the Judiciary will monitor closely expeditious implementation of the requirement. The INS has not been timely in completing an interagency report on reform issues which would have aided House consideration of this bill. I trust overstay statistics will be the basis for changes in the future by which countries will qualify for the waiver program based on how well foreign citizens comply with visa requirements, instead of the current system, under which qualification is based on the percentage of applications for visas which are rejected by the State Department. Rejections are based on often subjective criteria, as was illustrated last week when a mediation panel found a U.S. consular official in the Sao Paolo, Brazil, visa office was unjustly dismissed from his position for having criticized the visa approval system as being vague and having inconsistent criteria used there, criteria such as labeling some non-immigrant applicants as ``looks poor,'' ``talks poorly,'' or ``looks rough.'' Moving away from such a seriously flawed system would be welcome. Representing an area very heavily dependent on tourism, particularly on tourists from Asia, I and a number of others here in the Chamber have been working to bring South Korea into the visa waiver program. The Seoul embassy has the highest number of applications for non- immigration visa of any U.S. embassy. Approximately 600,000 visa applications were filed there last year, many of them for visitor visas. This shows not only the importance of Korean travel to our country, but also the need to expedite the system for allowing Korean visitors into the United States for tourism, as well as for business and commercial purposes.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I am very grateful to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) for his kind remarks, and I look forward to working with him and the administration in the future to address these matters, as well as the very legitimate concerns such as security that the chairman has raised.

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

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 856, the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act. My decision to support this legislation is based on my experiences in Puerto Rico and as a Member representing the last state to be admitted to the union. Not only do I believe the referendum mandated under this legislation to be in accord with the will of the people of Puerto Rico--I also believe it is morally incumbent upon the Congress to move the self- determination process along. The United States cannot declare itself to be the capital of the free world when it denies the fundamental principles of democracy to a group of its citizens. Let me be clear, this legislation is not a statehood bill. It allows Puerto Ricans the right to express their own views about their island's destiny through an initial non-binding referendum. The next step in the process would require the aspirations of the majority of the people of Puerto Rico to be reviewed and approved by the President of the United States and the Congress. A change in status to either statehood or independence would actually required three island-wide majority votes, three congressional approvals, and a prudent transition period of ten years. Certainly much more thought, review, and revision would follow an approval of this legislation by the House of Representatives. However, we can at least do our duty as Members of Congress by providing the people of Puerto Rico with the opportunity to undertake the process. All the political conjecture about this legislation--``it creates an artificial majority in favor of statehood,'' or ``new Members of Congress from Puerto Rico will join the Democratic Party,'' or ``the definition of Commonwealth is unfair,'' or ``Puerto Rico will be America's Quebec,'' are all just that--conjecture. No one really knows what will result from this legislation, no one can predict the future. The lesson learned when Alaska and Hawaii joined the union as the 49th and 50th states bears this out. The political soothsayers of the day determined that Alaska would have a Democratic delegation and Hawaii would be Republican. As we all know, today the exact opposite is true. We cannot determine the future of Puerto Rico by voting for H.R. 856. however, we can stop the conjecture and begin the work it will take to give Puerto Ricans the ability to determine their own future. I would also like to address the question of English as the official language. As a legislator who supported the inclusion of Hawaiian and English as official languages of the State of Hawaii, I am proud to say that the recognition of both languages has been a benefit to our islands, not a deficiency. Children who attend Hawaiian immersion schools actually score higher in English and other academic disciplines than their classmates who do not have the reference point of a second language. By encouraging the study and knowledge of more than one language, the children discover a deeper meaning to their studies. They have a cultural reference point that children without the knowledge of their native language lack. Bilingualism is an asset--let us continue to encourage it in Hawaii and also Puerto Rico. A rich and unique cultural history should not divide Puerto Rico from the rest of the United States. A rich and unique cultural history defines who Puerto Ricans are today. Let us pass H.R. 856 and allow Puerto Ricans to define who they are and where they want to be in the future.