Neil Abercrombie

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I am speaking on the time of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton). I am speaking from the majority side of the aisle because I am speaking on his time. I am looking at the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) right now who is smiling at me, and trying to get over the hush that came over the crowd as someone moves to this side. I am looking for the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), my very able chairman. I point that out because this is a nonpartisan issue and is being cast, I am very sorry to say, in somewhat partisan terms, not necessarily by party but partisan terms, as if there is a right side and a wrong side. As the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Romero- Barcelo) has indicated, as the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) has indicated, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) has indicated, and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), what we are trying to do here today is to aid and assist, as Members of the House of Representatives, the self-determination of fellow citizens. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) has been adamant on this. I do not think we are going to find a more partisan person in the House with respect to the question of English and its being used as common language throughout the United States. But that issue will be debated in another venue, at another time. What we are talking about here is something that I ask Members, as a representative from the last State to come into the Union. We have only been a State for 38 years. We have been a State for less years than many people in this body have been alive and serving in public office. So it is very, very particularly poignant in some respects to me today to stand here as someone who was not born in Hawaii and has the privilege to serve in Hawaii. I was born in the east of the United States, in Buffalo, New York, in the area represented by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Paxon) today. It never occurred to me that one day I would have the privilege and honor of standing in the well of this House to serve the people not only of Hawaii, but of the United States of America. That will happen in Puerto Rico. We cannot determine ahead of time what is going to happen there. The conventional wisdom, as some will recall, when Hawaii and Alaska came into the Union, was that Hawaii would be a Republican State, and, indeed, we elected a Republican Governor in our very first State election, and that Alaska would be a democratic State. As you know, that has worked differently. We have had Republican office holders here, we have had Democratic office holders here. This is not a partisan issue. Mr. Chairman, I appeal to my Republican friends, please, take into account that our fellow citizens are merely asking for the opportunity to determine their future. Join Democrats and Republicans all together and vote for the bill and against this particular amendment.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I too rise in strong support of the bill. S. 927 provides a strong reauthorization of the National Sea Grant College Program which, for over 30 years, has addressed important local, regional and national marine resource problems through education, research and public outreach. The legislation before the House is a compromise with the other body. It reauthorizes Sea Grant for 5 years. It clarifies the roles of the national office and the Sea Grant colleges. It strengthens competitive peer review for grants and contracts for research, education and outreach, and generally brings Sea Grant up to date as a modern education and research program. The authorization levels in the bill will fully fund Sea Grant's ongoing base program, while providing additional funding for certain research priorities, which include nonindigenous species, oyster disease, and toxic microbe Pfiesteria. While I do not question the validity of research in these areas, I regret that some Members have felt it necessary to question whether all of these research options are necessary. One of the sea grant's great strengths over the years has been its ability to respond rapidly and effectively to local and regional needs, Mr. Speaker. I think that that is something that is now involved in the program in a way that both the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) and myself can support. There is no reason to think that it will not continue to do so; that is to say, respond effectively to local needs under its usual effective peer review processes. I would like to express my appreciation for the cooperation that we in the minority have received from the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the staffs on this bill. I can assure my colleagues that on this bill any partisan considerations were put to rest with respect to the thrust of the legislative activity under consideration. This is not, therefore, a bipartisan bill, this is a nonpartisan bill. I think all of us who represent coastal areas have long appreciated the benefits of this practical and noncontroversial program. It is a good bill, reauthorizing a popular program. I am glad we are doing it at this time. I most certainly urge the House to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). (Mr. GREEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Weygand).

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to express once again my gratitude to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) and express my very fond aloha to him and to the committee staff. Mr. Speaker, I do not think anyone in the Congress is as devoted to the subject matter over which he has jurisdiction than the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton). The ocean resources over which this Nation has sovereignty and the concern that he expresses for this most valuable of all resources is something that sets the benchmark, I think, for all of us regardless of party.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to adjust the Federal medical assistance percentage [FMAP] rate for Hawaii to more fairly reflect the state's ability to bear its share of Medicaid payments. I am pleased that my colleague, Representative Patsy Mink, has joined me as a sponsor of this measure. I am also happy to join our Senate counterparts, Senator Daniel Akaka and Senator Daniel Inouye, in putting forth this legislation. In November 1997, a similar bill, S. 1376 was introduced by Senator Akaka. The Federal share of Medicaid payments for each state varies according to the state's ability to pay. Because per capita income is the determining factor for ability to pay, wealthier state bear a larger share of the cost of the program through lower FMAP rates. In Hawaii, per capita income is relatively high. Thus, the State's FMAP rate is 50 percent, the lowest level. Under this bill, Hawaii's FMAP rate would be increased from 50 percent to 59.8 percent. The rationale for the FMAP rate 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 it as the highest in the country. Some government programs take the high cost of living in Hawaii into account and funding is adjusted accordingly. These programs include Medicare 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 gaging Hawaii's ability to support its health care programs. An excellent analysis of this issue is included in the twenty-first edition of ``The Federal Budget and the States,'' a joint study conducted by the Taubman Center and Local Government at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government and the office of Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. According to the study, 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. 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. In addition to the high cost of living, the Harvard-Moynihan study finds that Hawaii also has one of the highest poverty rates in the nation. The state's 16.9 percent poverty rate is ranked eighth in the country, compared to the national average of 14.7 percent. These higher cost levels are reflected in state government expenditures and state taxation. On a per capita basis, state revenue and expenditures are far higher in Hawaii, as well as Alaska, than in the 48 mainland states. The higher expenditure levels are necessary to assure an adequate level of public services which are more costly to provide in our states. Of the top 10 states with the highest poverty rates in the country, the Harvard-Moynihan study finds that only 3 others have an FMAP rate between 50 and 60 percent. The other six states have FMAP rates of 65 percent and higher. Even more revealing is that of the top 10 states with the lowest real per capita income, only Hawaii has a 50 percent FMAP rate. During consideration of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, the Senate included a provision increasing Alaska's FMAP rate to 59.8 percent for the next 3 years. 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, but would better recognize Hawaii's ability to pay its fair share of the costs of the Medicaid program. I hope to make my colleagues in the House of Representative colleagues cognizant of the need for this legislation and to earn their support for its passage in the 105th Congress.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on H.R. 2267, the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill. One of the provisions included in the bill is a 6-month extension of the State Department's Visa Waiver Pilot Program [VWPP]. This is the mechanism by which our country allows visitors from approximately 26 nations to enter the United States without visas. Passports are sufficient for entry. And this is a good program. Obtaining visas is a time-consuming endeavor, from applications, screening, approval, and to issuance. We do not need to require visas of every visitor from abroad, and the Visa Waiver Pilot Program has been a tremendous success for years in expediting foreign visitors, whether for employment, tourism, family, or business purposes. I have been working closely with Congressmen Barney Frank, Jay Kim, and others with the leadership of the Immigration and Claims Subcommittee, particularly Chairman Lamar Smith and ranking Democrat Mel Watt, to resolve a problem--specifically whether Portugal and the Republic of Korea should be included in the visa waiver program. They have exerted tremendous time and energy and effort to identify and resolve problems in the program and we are committed to working together in the months ahead to adjust the program so that citizens of these countries can travel to the United States with only a passport. Mr. Speaker, during the hearings and committee consideration of the visa waiver program, concerns were raised by some Members and the State and Justice Departments. I do not believe those concerns are insurmountable, and we are working with those agencies to address security and other concerns. We all feel that the current waiver criteria should be reformed, and I will be working in the months ahead with my colleagues to craft a visa waiver system that expands visitor opportunities. As you know, tourism is the dominant industry in Hawaii, and it is crucially important that we have a visa waiver system for tourists that allows a maximum number of visitors to enter the United States. Thousands of Hawaiian families and individuals are dependent on tourism and on the number of visitors using hotels, restaurants, transportation facilities, and retail businesses. A strong case has been made that citizens of Korea, one of our strongest allies in the world, should be given the waiver consideration that we have afforded 26 other nations. The 6 months extension of the existing Visa Waiver Pilot Program is a prudent decision, and reflects a good-faith effort being made to address constructively the issues facing the future of the program. I look forward to working with Chairman Smith, the members of the House Judiciary Committee, and those seeking an expansion of the program to develop an effective and workable program addressing all concerns.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the bill to extend the Native American Veterans Housing Loan Program and for other purposes. In July I introduced H.R. 2317, the House companion bill to S. 714. I am pleased that we are able to take up the Senate's version today. I would like to thank the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Evans] and the staff of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs for working hard to strike the compromise which made it possible to take up this bill on the floor today. I would especially like to thank Debra Wada of Senator Akaka's staff and Jill Cochran of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs for their hard work on improving benefits for native American veterans. In 1992, the Native American Veterans' Home Loan Equity Act was enacted to establish and implement a pilot program to make direct housing loans to aid native American, Indian, Alaska or Hawaii Native or Pacific islander, veterans in purchasing, constructing, or improving dwellings on trust lands. The Department of Veterans Affairs has successfully entered into agreements to provide direct loans to members of 46 Indian tribes and Pacific island groups. The VA is in negotiation with hundreds of other tribes to establish memorandums of understanding which would make this program available to those tribes. It is important that we extend this program to allow those native American tribes who are still in negotiations with the VA to have a chance to apply for these loans. Through June of 1997, 164 loans were made to both Pacific islanders and native American veterans, with 90 applications pending. To date none of those loans issued has been foreclosed. This is an extremely successful program and is the only program available for this group of veterans who live on trust lands to finance homes for their families. The Department of Veterans Affairs supports the extension of this program. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the main issue here is equity. Native American veterans have a right to the same benefits available to other veterans. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, despite the subject matter, which I am sure the gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert] has explicated very clearly, this is in fact a happy day. That is to say that with the passage of the bill today, the Senate bill, S. 813, we will have addressed a very, very serious matter in a timely fashion, which is to say that the President will have the opportunity, hopefully, to sign this bill, perhaps as early as Veterans Day, upcoming Veterans Day. Mr. Speaker, I rise today then to urge my colleagues to support passage of S. 813, the Veterans Cemetery Protection Act, as amended by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. The gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert] and I first introduced this bill in the House, and I am happy that we were able to work with the Senate to bring their version to the floor today for passage. As I indicated, it is appropriate that we are able to take up this bill as Veterans Day approaches. This bill instructs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to significantly increase criminal penalties for theft and willful vandalism at national cemeteries. First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take some time to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert], who gave me the opportunity to work with him on this requisite piece of legislation. It has indeed been a pleasure to work with him, and I am pleased that together we have been successful in our effort to move this bill through Congress. I might say as well, Mr. Speaker, that I have had an opportunity to work with the gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert] as the ranking member on his subcommittee and the Committee on Resources previous to this, and it has been an extraordinarily enjoyable time for me, legislatively and personally, to be associated with him. I would also like to sincerely thank the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] for recognizing the need for this legislation and for working with us, the gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert] and myself, and giving us their support in moving this issue forward. The gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert] has been extraordinarily patient in this endeavor, and I very much appreciate it. I would likewise like to thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], who has also made a significant contribution to this bill, and I would like to extend my personal gratitude to him. I have had the opportunity to work with him in other areas as well, juvenile justice for one. And I appreciate the opportunity to extend to him my personal congratulations in helping to get this forward and extend to him my personal thanks. On April 19, 1997, Mr. Speaker, seven Oahu cemeteries on the Island of Oahu in the State of Hawaii, including the National Cemetery of the Pacific at Punchbowl and the Hawaii Veterans Cemetery, were vandalized. Vandals used red spray paint to write racist and profane words on grave markers and cemetery and chapel walls. It is obvious that nothing is, in fact, sacred to the people who committed this act. Strict penalties must be enacted to send the message that we will not allow this type of behavior to continue unchecked. As we have heard from the gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert], this was not the only desecration of a national cemetery to occur in the country. Unfortunately, this type of crime is on the rise. On May 18, 1997, the New Jersey National Cemetery was also vandalized just prior to Memorial Day. These acts are an insult to the veterans who gave their lives to ensure our freedoms and to their families. Further, it is an affront to all men and women who have served or are presently serving in our Nation's Armed Forces. I regret to say, Mr. Speaker, but it is entirely a propos that, unfortunately, just yesterday, and I arrived a little too late to know whether the gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert] entered this into the Record, but there was a Scripps Howard News Service story just yesterday, ``Vandalism Rising At Veterans Cemeteries.'' Coincidental, Mr. Speaker, of course, to the passage of the bill today, but very pertinent in terms of asking the Members to support it. The story says, in part, ``Lawmakers hope President Clinton will sign the bill into law on Veterans Day, on Tuesday.'' I want to indicate that under the sentencing guidelines which I mentioned, in case it has not been made a part of the Record, it gives guidelines to the judges, directing them to increase the penalties for convictions of theft and vandalism at the national cemeteries. The measure before us would set prison terms for up to 10 years for anyone convicted of vandalism causing more that $1,000 damage and up to 15 years for thefts at the national cemeteries. I would like to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by indicating that today we are voting to send that message that we will not forget the sacrifices made by those who made the ultimate sacrifice and that we will not tolerate further desecration of our Nation's cemeteries.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1856. This bill was unanimously reported from the Resources Committee and the amendment before the House improves its benefits to wildlife even more. The bill's sponsor, the gentleman from New Jersey, has done yeoman service for wildlife in this country by introducing this legislation and expeditiously bringing it before the House. The amendment does three things: it promotes volunteer programs on wildlife refuges; it protects wildlife habitat by reauthorizing the highly successful North American Wetlands Conservation Act; and it improves the management of nongame species of wildlife by reauthorizing a program of Federal matching grants for such activities. Mr. Speaker, this bill is about protecting wildlife habitat and enhancing the management of both game and nongame wildlife. We have long since reached a point where Government cannot provide all the know-how and resources adequately to protect our wildlife. By establishing a pilot program to encourage partnerships between wildlife refuges and private organizations, we create a win-win situation for wildlife. Local citizens get an opportunity to gain firsthand experience with wildlife while enjoying the simple pleasure of volunteer service. For their part, wildlife refuges get expertise from the local community, as well as goods and services that would not otherwise be available to them. In the 7 years of its existence, the North American Wetlands Act has resulted in the protection of more than 10 million acres of wetlands in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. $208 million in Government funds for this voluntary, nonregulatory program have been matched by more than $420 million in non-Federal funds, conserving valuable habitat for migratory birds and many nonmigratory species as well. Last, the amendment reauthorizes the Partnerships for Wildlife Act, which provides matching grants for nongame wildlife conservation and appreciation. A permanent source of funding, like we have for sportfish and game conservation, is sorely needed for nongame species. The States currently estimate their unmet needs for nongame management and conservation at over $300 million annually. I hope that we have the opportunity to give permanent funding for nongame species serious consideration next session. In the meantime, we will continue doing what we can for nongame species under the Partnerships for Wildlife Program. This is sound legislation to benefit wildlife through nonregulatory programs that leverage scarce Federal resources. I urge the House to support H.R. 1856.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

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

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I am not precisely sure of what the exact rule is, or what the Committee on Rules has put forward with respect to the possibility of an amendment of this nature. I have the greatest respect for the intentions of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] in presenting this bill, both with respect to how the bill was put together and to what the implications of the bill are, and I would, far from speaking for him, nonetheless posit the proposition to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and Members of the House, that essentially what the gentleman from Mississippi is proposing is entirely consonant with the object of the bill before us. So in that regard, Mr. Speaker, I would like to just bring a bit of historical perspective to consideration of the bill. At one point, and I am sure the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] will recall, we had a Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee which concerned itself with, among other things, the terms and conditions of international trade on the high seas. I consider that I was a reasonably well-informed individual in my life prior to coming to the Congress, but nonetheless was rather shocked and very chagrined to discover the degree to which disregard for the rules of international trade and disregard for the contractual agreements that had been reached between the United States and other nations, particularly China, was the fact of the matter before us in that committee. We found that there were shipping trade violations, and I think the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] was a Member of that committee and could attest to the fact that I, among others, upon discovering it, simply could not understand why we do not enforce the rules we already have. I think we as Americans take some pride in the fact that we try to keep our agreements, we try to live up to our contracts. That was not taking place. We have just had recent evidence of what can happen when we do take a stand. The proposition of gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] is such that we can, if it is put forward and agreed to, take the kind of stand that has been exemplified, Mr. Speaker, in recent days with the decision of the Maritime Commission to fine certain Japanese companies, shipping companies, for not living up to the rules and regulations to which they had agreed and which we live up to. The fines were such that when they were imposed, that the executive, in the form, of course, of the President and his administration, was forced into the position, and, in fact, it may be apocryphal, but I heard at one point that the President or someone under his immediate authority said, can they do that? Who are these people? They are our Maritime Commission, and by God, they were doing their job. What their job was is not to turn the American people into suckers and saps, where they are not made to be fools. People know that when it is happening. One of the reasons there is cynicism abroad in the United States today is people know that they are being played for suckers. They do not like it. They want us, if we are on the floor of this House, free men and women elected by free men and women, to not be made fools of. They expect us to insist as legislators, as national legislators, that we carry these things out, that we see to it that the rules and regulations are obeyed. I think that is the intention of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] with the bill. I would like to say that I support the idea of reciprocity, and would ask the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], in the context of what is possible under the rules as applied to the bill, whether or not the intent of the proposal of the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor], that is, that a review and reciprocity be instituted with respect to tariffs, might be possible to incorporate into the bill.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I realize, Mr. Speaker, that was said in a jocular fashion, and I can assure the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon], neither the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] nor myself meant to impose any such kind of admonition on the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] with respect to his staunch defense of freedom against communism. However, I do think in the spirit of the bill he put forward, we are requesting that he take into consideration the thrust of the proposition of the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].

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

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I will yield to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler] such time as may still be reserved for this side.

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

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, we have no other Members wishing to speak at this time, and therefore I will yield back the remainder of the time allotted to us.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey]. (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I will not take the 30 minutes, other than to say how proud I am to be able to stand here today and associate myself with the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler]. I have the good fortune, Mr. Speaker, to be associated, as well, with the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler] on the Committee on National Security, and in this instance I can say that I believe we are cooperating, if you will, in the same manner and in the same sense of commitment and dedication that is exemplified in the work on the Committee on National Security. This is, Mr. Speaker, most profoundly a human rights issue. It is not something that we are putting forward, or I should say the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler] has put forward, if I can speak for her in this instance, because of ideological considerations with respect to the very real differences that people may have with respect to questions of choice and abortion here in the United States. This, on the contrary, is a situation in which we are speaking of force. Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons that I became involved in political work in the first place was that I could not understand as a child, as a young man growing up, how people could do the things that they did that I discovered when I first was exposed to the Holocaust. I could not understand it. I could not comprehend it as a student. One of the things that propelled me in my academic career was to try to come to grips with what it was in us as human beings that caused us to be indifferent to the suffering of other human beings; in fact, to perpetrate death, terror, destruction, inhumanity, one to another. In this instance, Mr. Speaker, there is no question in my mind that the forced abortion and sterilization circumstances and actions which the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler] has outlined and which Amnesty International has chronicled is taking place. Mr. Speaker, this took place in Nazi Germany. If I learned anything over that period of time in my academic studies in my attempt to try to come to grips with what human beings are capable of doing to one another, I recognized that it is because we dehumanize other people that it is able to be done. Mr. Speaker, I believe you have had some experience yourself in warfare and in the destructive capacity that humankind has. We have not overcome it, but, hopefully, we learn something from it. One of the things I think that we learn, I hope that we learn, is that we cannot allow historical reference to simply be abstract, we have to see whether it applies in our own lives and our own time. It does little good. I can think, and, again, I would hope that I am not speaking for the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler] on this other than in a way that recognizes and is cognizant of the thrust of her philosophy behind putting this bill forward. It is one thing to recognize a Thomas More, that we must stand for those things which perk our conscience and which require us as human beings to make visible or expression of witness. That is what this is. I agree with the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler] that we are not in a position to command enforcement. That would be extraordinarily difficult. That is not an argument against it. That is an argument for us to stand up and do these things precisely because it is difficult. Bearing witnesses is not always an easy task. But because it involves logistical difficulties is not a reason to stop doing it or to urge that it be done. On the contrary, it seems to me it is even more pertinent and even more important that we stand up now. So this, I repeat, from my earlier espousal of the Ros-Lehtinen bill on human rights abuses toward prisoners in China and in Tibet, in China and Tibet, that we have to bring the light into the cells and we have to bring the light onto this situation of forced abortion and sterilization, not because we are trying to single out China and take a superior, a patronizing position, an imperialistic position, where we feel that we can condescend toward China in this regard. Quite the contrary. China is a signatory to various international covenants and treaties, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that is in the purview of the United Nations. Everything that we are doing with respect to these bills in general, and most particularly to this bill in particular, is a direct reflection of treaty and covenant obligations that we have as a nation, that China has as a nation, and that we as individuals surely express. It most certainly, I believe, exemplifies what we stand for when we take our oath of office, hold up our hand, Mr. Speaker, as all of us have been privileged to do on the floor of this House, to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. Inherent in that, that which has been given to us, the honor and privilege of serving here, is to reflect upon the philosophical basis of the origin of the Constitution which allows us to be free men and women here today. We are, in a very real sense, I believe, defending those who are unable totally to defend themselves under these circumstances. So, Mr. Speaker, I request the favorable attention of our colleagues. I hope that perhaps those young people might be in the same circumstances I found myself so many years ago, trying to understand how to be a human being, what it is that differentiates us from the other animals, the other species. I have come to the conclusion, and this bill is a visible manifestation of it, that all animals die, Mr. Speaker. The difference is in the details of their lives. And the details of our lives are such that we are able to reflect, we are able to imagine. Few animals are able to contemplate the nature of their deaths or the nature of the meaning of their deaths, let alone their lives. But we are capable, this species, homo sapiens, is capable of that and, in fact, is obligated to do that. We have to justify our lives on this Earth in the time given to us. This bill is one of the times we have to justify our lives. And in voting for it, I think we act on that obligation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros- Lehtinen]; the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman]; the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon]; also the gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] have led the way on this bill, on these series of bills. I rise in support of H.R. 2358. This bill relates to imprisonment, to abuse and human rights violations perpetrated on nonviolent political activists in the People's Republic of China. It goes without saying, Mr. Speaker, that U.S.-China relations are important, and that our government should pursue improved ties with China. It is equally important, however, that the pursuit of improved relations should not cause us to forget the victims of human rights abuses. Our concern stems from widely recognized standards of international behavior and our core values as a Nation. It is in the context of those values and standards, standards which the People's Republic of China has herself formally subscribed, and I want to emphasize to the Members, we are not trying to impose anything on the People's Republic of China, other than what the People's Republic has already signed up for. We as Members of Congress call the world's attention to ongoing human rights violations and prisoners of conscience in China and Tibet. One of the most effective means, Mr. Speaker, of directing attention to the plight of such prisoners is to focus on the circumstances of individual prisoners. By doing so, we transpose the issue from the realm of abstraction to real-life men and women whose bodies are subjected to torture and neglect, whose minds are cruelly punished with techniques deliberately designed to induce confusion, demoralization and despair. Time and again, ex-prisoners of repressive regimes tell us that the single most important gift they can receive is the news they are not forgotten by the outside world, that others know of their suffering and that others are working for their release. That is why the Congressional Human Rights Caucus and the Congressional Working Group on China and the emphasis in this bill is urging every Member of Congress to adopt a prisoner in China or Tibet, and to publicize his or her plight, and to demand his or her release. All of us, Mr. Speaker, can adopt one of these prisoners, make that prisoner our own, so they will not be forgotten. They will understand that the flicker of light of freedom will come from the floor of this House today and will shine, and those people will know it. It will warm their hearts and give them hope for the future. The self-executing rule for H.R. 2358 adds my amendment, which will include Mr. Ngodrup Phuntsog among the number of specifically named prisoners of conscience. Mr. Phuntsog is a Tibetan restaurateur whose crime was to provide tea and food to proindependence demonstrators. For this he was sentenced in 1989 on the spurious charge of espionage to 11 years in prison. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Phuntsog was sentenced to 11 years in prison. Think of it. We are gathered together here today on this floor, with all the freedoms at our command, and this gentleman sits in prison for 11 years, and an additional 4 years deprivation of political rights. It is feared that his treatment in Lhasa's Drapchi Prison is extremely harsh. We lack precise information on his health and treatment, but reports from our colleague, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Frank Wolf] give cause for serious concern. Recently the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] visited Tibet unofficially. He found widespread repression, including credible reports of the maltreatment of political prisoners, and my amendment helps direct the spotlight of international attention to the cell where Ngodrup Phuntsog and others are being held under conditions we can only imagine. My amendment complements the underlying bill by addressing the wider issue of human rights in China and Tibet. It calls for a policy which seeks the immediate and unconditional release of all prisoners of conscience in China and Tibet, access to international humanitarian organizations in prisons in China and Tibet, to ensure that the prisoners are not being maltreated or neglected, and the commencement of negotiations between the People's Republic of China and the Dalai Lama without preconditions on the future of Tibet. I urge all my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, all my colleagues, to vote for the Nation's highest ideals, and to send, above all, a message of hope to prisoners of conscience in China and Tibet. Vote for H.R. 2358.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Would the gentleman agree that the result of this, then, is that the domestic industry is shrinking by thousands of jobs? As a matter of fact, I believe that the domestic industry shrank by 56,000 jobs in 1996 alone and 52,000 more jobs through September of this year. Just today we had the announcement from the Levi Company that one- third of all its employees in North America are going to be released. The union representing these workers is forced to negotiate their release. This clothing import situation under this bill will only get worse, and that means the loss of American jobs by the thousands.

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