Neil Abercrombie

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, on rare occasions during our lifetimes, we have the opportunity to encounter an extraordinary individual. One such individual is John Nathan Sturdivant, president of the American Federation of Government Employees. His recent death was a heavy blow for Federal workers, their families, and for all of us who admired the qualities that he brought to his work. John Sturdivant served our country as a member of the Armed Forces and as a civilian employee. As a leader of the AFGE, he continued to serve by representing the Federal employees who translate policy in the actual operations of the Federal Government. To this task, John Sturdivant brought the qualities of vision and leadership. He supported Federal employees working with managers to make Government more efficient, productive, and cost effective. At the same time, he remained a labor leader, dedicated to the principle of collective bargaining and the dignity of working people. May I conclude, Mr. Speaker, with a personal note. John Sturdivant displayed throughout his final months extraordinary bravery and commitment. He worked without ceasing as long as he was physically capable. His attitude and demeanor never reflected his pain and distress. He was devoted to the AFGE, its principles and its people to the end of his life. His dedication to service on behalf of the American public was unfailing. All of us who address the public interests can only hope to live up to the standards set by John Sturdivant. John Sturdivant had the capacity to inspire loyalty and the ability to enlarge the vision of those with whom he worked. These are the qualities of a true leader. To his daughter Michelle, to his family and to the membership of the American Federation of Government Employees, we extend our deepest sympathy. John Sturdivant was one of those who made the world a better place than he found it. He will be deeply missed by all of us.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak in favor of the amendment that the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] has just outlined. I want to make an appeal to Members of the House. Mr. Chairman, I am a Member of the House of Representatives, proud to serve here and I think, Mr. Chairman, you know that I have said on more than one occasion that respect for the House includes being able to win and also understand what losing is all about, being defeated. The last two amendments did not come out the way I voted. I understand that and I accept that. But, Mr. Chairman, what I am hoping is a basic sense of fairness can prevail. Those votes were close. People were paying strict attention to what it was they were voting on. And I think we have to give the best possible motivation and express goodwill toward one another with respect to our votes. So my appeal on asking Members to vote for this amendment is one based on fairness. With all due respect to the previous speakers, this is not a question of closing borders; this is a question of whether we are going to extend the same privileges explicit, I would say, Mr. Chairman, in the last two amendments to foreign-controlled corporations. Mr. Chairman, I do not think that this can be reduced to an argument about whether or not we are treating our western brothers and sisters fairly or those in the majority of areas where the grazing takes place. It is one thing for us to involve ourselves in a discussion as to what is the appropriate legislative approach on grazing land. It is another thing to subsidize foreign-controlled permittees. I do not see how we can make an argument based on fairness, based on fairness to the American taxpayer, that would allow us to do this. All the amendment of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] is saying is that if businesses come in and make these investments as a foreign-controlled permittee, that they should not be allowed to have the benefit of the American taxpayer dollar. This is not an assault on anyone overseas. Mr. Chairman, I would be very interested to see what kind of argument would be made when we look at the kind of laws that apply against Americans being involved with owning land and being able to extract minerals or to engage in other kinds of agricultural business in other countries. Mr. Chairman, we are always the ones that are expected to do the producing for others in terms of fairness. What we are asking for is fairness for the American taxpayer here. Surely those who in good conscience made their votes on the other two measures can look to that same conscience to see, is this really the intent of those who favored the law as it is presently applied? Is it really the intent that these foreign-controlled permittees should be involved in this way? Mr. Chairman, this is far from mischief. I do not think it is fair to characterize it that way. This is a fundamental question about what we have as a legislative foundation for the application of these laws. We have had our arguments, we have had our discussions as to whether the existing law and how it is applied, Mr. Chairman, is fair and appropriate. Surely it is a legitimate question. Far from being capricious or mischievous, it is a legitimate question as to whether the law ever intended this. I ask, Mr. Chairman, that as Members come to vote on this particular amendment, can they in good conscience say that it was the intent and is the intent of this legislation to subsidize the foreign-controlled permittees? I think an honest evaluation, a fair evaluation would come to the conclusion it is not. And therefore I ask that we vote favorably on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] in the spirit of what has been accomplished here today in terms of the legislative process. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak against the motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 2267, the Departments of Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998. I support section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The provision allows certain immigrants to have their papers processed here in order to become permanent residents, rather than requiring them to return to their home country. Section 245(i) is available only to people who are already eligible to become permanent residents, that is, those who are sponsored by close family members or by employers who cannot find eligible U.S. workers, and whose ``priority date'' is current under existing quotas. The provision does not, as alleged, give illegal immigrants the right to live in the United States. Nor does the provision change the order in which a person's claim is adjudicated. There is one single worldwide line for everyone waiting for their immigrant visa. People adjusting status under section 245(i) are screened to make sure that they are barred from obtaining a green card on grounds such as criminal offenses, health problems, becoming a public charge, or other thresholds of inadmissibility. In addition, people applying under section 245(i) must submit fingerprints to the Federal Bureau of Investigation to verify that they have no disqualifying criminal history in the United States or in their home country. If section 245(i) is not extended, both the Immigration and Naturalization [INS] and the State Department will be adversely impacted by a significant shift in workload. INS will lose personnel and money now earmarked for badly needed apprehension and detention efforts. Section 245(i) generated about $200 million in revenues in fiscal year 1996, of which 80 percent was used for detention. U.S. consulates abroad will be under great strain due to the increased workload without the additional resources that section 245(i) provides. U.S. citizens who seek services from one of these agencies will suffer, not just those individuals who could have used section 245(i). Section 245(i) allows business to keep valued employees, allows families to stay together, and pays for detention. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to instruct conferees.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I would just hope that by the time we come to vote on the authorization bill, that we take into account that this bill, particularly this year, is the result of the efforts of numerous people, giving their best effort to come to a conclusion, come to a resolution. Not everybody is happy with the contents of the defense authorization bill. Very few people are happy in any given year with the bill because it covers such a wide range of items. In this particular instance, I cannot think of a time when more people devoted not just hours or days, but months, trying to come to a fair resolution. Mr. Speaker, I have indicated before, this is not theology, this is legislation; this is not a cathedral, this is the House of Representatives. That means that we are not coming to final conclusions and ultimate resolutions here. We are trying to act in concert on the basis of 435 agendas as to what is best for the people of this country. I ask everyone's support for the Department of Defense authorization bill.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, before I rise in strong support of the Senate amendments to House Concurrent Resolution No. 8, I want to assure the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] that in the statement of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], that I submitted on the Asian elephant resolution, that it did not contain a statement, as rumored, that while he was in favor of increasing the number of Asian elephants in South Asia, that he was for decreasing the number of elephants on the Committee on Resources. Madam Speaker, this resolution brings much-needed attention to the crisis that coral reefs are facing worldwide. I commend yet once again the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] for his leadership in introducing and passing House Concurrent Resolution No. 8, and for focusing on the subcommittee's attention on the value of and threats to coral reefs. I also want to praise the efforts of the ranking member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] for his concern over cyanide fishing and the need to promote sustainable coral reef fisheries, ideas incorporated in the Senate amendments to the resolution. Coral reefs, as I have every opportunity to observe, being from Hawaii, Madam Speaker, are vital to the environment and the economy of many islands and coastal States, territories, and nations. They are among the most biologically diverse and productive ecosystems on Earth, rivaling the tropical rain forests on land. The hard structure of the reef is built up over thousands of years by the secretions of tiny living coral animals, so a coral reef is truly a living structure. As a living structure, thousands, perhaps millions, of individual coral animals are dying, and others are taking their place on the reef at any one time. The problem now is that human activities have shifted that balance, and coral reefs are dying off at an alarming rate worldwide. Coral is very sensitive to water pollution, sedimentation, damage from boat groundings, or even simple physical contact by divers. These largely inadvertent injuries are a significant cause of the well-documented decline of coral reefs worldwide. Coral reefs are, in a sense, the canary in the coal mine of the ocean. A great deal of injury is also being inflicted on coral reefs, mainly in Southeast Asia and the Indo-Pacific through largely illegal fishing techniques. Cyanide and other elements, such as dishwashing liquids, are being used to stun fish for capture for the aquarium trade and for the live food fish trade. The demand for live food fish, fueled by increasing affluence in Asia, has resulted in widespread depletion of stocks of the preferred species. As a result, the live-capture boats are moving into even more remote and thus more pristine reefs. Most of the aquarium fish captured by these techniques end up in hobby tanks in the United States, I am sorry to say. Most of the live food fish end up on plates in the homes and restaurants of Southeast Asia. More damaging than the depletion of coral reef fisheries, these chemicals kill nearby coral, and divers scrambling to get fish out of the nooks and crannies of the reef often cause substantial physical damage to the reef. In fact, research has shown that cyanide kills reef-building corals at concentrations many thousands of times less than that used by live-capture divers. While depletion of certain fish species threatens the ecological balance of the reef by removing key predators and grazers, the destruction of the reef building corals themselves tears at the very fabric of the ecosystem. Although the State Department, NOA, the Department of the Interior and other agencies are working through the international coral reef initiative to identify and reduce threats to coral reefs, they need our help. Thus, this resolution before us today. These kinds of unsustainable fishing practices would not be occurring if powerful market forces were not at work. The U.S. and Asian consumer demands for reef fish is, in part, driving its destruction of coral reefs. Yet, how many aquarium hobbyists would purchase a wild-caught reef fish if they truly understood that in doing so they were contributing to the destruction of the reef environment that they sought to reproduce in their tank? Furthermore, if affordable alternatives to wild-caught fish were available, would the educated consumer not choose them? This has worked very well in the exotic bird trade, and we can do the same for reef aquarium species and specimens. Many of the countries where the reefs are being destroyed, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and others, have laws on the books that protect the reefs, but there is little money for enforcement, and the more lucrative the market, the more people are willing to risk the penalties in any case. So the keys are information and education. Only by identifying these destructive practices and consumer demands that drive them can we begin to eliminate or modify them, and only through the development of sustainable coral reef fisheries can reefs be saved. This concurrent resolution before us today, Madam Speaker, No. 8, brings the global plight of coral reefs before Congress. It is intended to raise the level of awareness of policymakers and asks us to do more. The scientific and environmental communities have declared 1997 the International Year of the Reef. We cannot stop ships from running aground on reefs, and we may not be able to stop global warming at this stage, but what better time for us to pay attention to the many problems plaguing coral reefs and seek practical solutions to those threats that we can address? If we do not do something soon, there may not be any reefs left to save. With these thoughts in mind, Madam Speaker, and again thanking the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] for his leadership on this issue, I urge the House to adopt the resolution. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, I believe everyone who wishes to speak on the issue has done so, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am delighted to be here today, particularly in the company of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], my good friend. I too want to pay tribute not just to him and his great leadership on this issue but to the especially strong staff support we have received along the way with the enactment of this bill. Madam Speaker, I am just getting to the floor now because we have had the opportunity over the past couple of hours to be meeting on the questions of travel, tourism and the world, not only in relation to the United States but in relation one to another as people throughout the world. Madam Speaker, I cannot emphasize enough to Members that in paying particular attention to this species as covered under the Asian Elephant Conservation Act, we are taking a giant step forward in seeing to it not only that we respect the ecological consequences for the Asian elephant as such, but that we recognize that in this context, the people of the world are coming to know that we are all interrelated, and we are very, very hopeful that we will be able to fund as a result of this act partnerships, international partnerships, that will result in people being able to view the Asian elephant, to understand through the conservation of the Asian elephant its relationship to ecological balance, environmental balance in South Asia and that this is beneficial on a planetary basis when all of the species of the world understand their interrelationship. This is then a modest step in the effort to protect the existing Asian elephant herds from multiple sources of danger, including poaching for meat, hides, teeth and bones as well as capture for domestication and the encroachment of humans and civilization, so- called. Madam Speaker, the population of Asian elephants as has been pointed out, has been dwindling steadily and now numbers roughly 40,000 animals. It is an incredible thing to contemplate, as we did in the course of our examination in the committee hearings, what such a relatively small number of great animals and of course I must say parenthetically, Madam Speaker, that my respect for and admiration for the diversity of life on this planet was only enhanced by the hearings that we had. This is indeed one of God's most magnificent creatures and indeed represents something unique. Not everyone is aware that the Asian elephant has been a partner with humankind throughout all of the thousands of years of its existence. That relationship is now threatened by the advance of modern life. Maybe advance is almost the wrong word, Madam Speaker. But nonetheless we are realizing more and more that this great creature of South Asia, the Asian elephant, represented a true symbiosis between humankind and the animal kingdom that is now threatened. The numbers are less than 10 percent of the numbers of African elephants in the wild. I think that that is a very sobering statistic. The African elephant of course has received great publicity. It also of course is magnificent in its presentation of self in the wild and has attracted the imagination and admiration of people throughout the world. The Asian elephant being a blue collar animal, a working animal, a domesticated animal working in close proximity with human beings, has been ignored in the process. So this legislation will help prevent the eventual extinction of the Asian elephant as an endangered species. The future of these magnificent animals in the wild is in clear jeopardy. H.R. 1787 authorizes $5 million to fund projects crucial to the survival of the species. Our goals are to assist and support the conservation of elephant range, as the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] has enunciated so clearly and to support the United Nations Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. Although wild Asian elephants are scattered across 13 Asian countries, there are only 4 remaining herds containing 1,000 or more animals. Douglas H. Chadwick, a distinguished and honored scientist and author, wrote of these animals: Elephants are one of those animals by which we define the grandeur of creation. No larger life forms walk our earth and precious few are more intelligent. Elephants are more than just a part of the extraordinary variety of the plants and animals found in Asia's tropical forest. Elephants are one of the main reasons that the genetic bounty is there in the first place with the potential to provide humanity with new sources of food, fiber and pharmaceutical products. Elephants distribute seeds of perhaps one-third of all tropical trees. In some cases elephants are the only known agents of dispersal. To save Asian elephants is to save one of the principal shapers of biological diversity. To maintain habitat is to maintain the resources that enrich human communities over the long run. I am absolutely certain, Madam Speaker, speaking parenthetically that with the expansion of the Asian elephant habitat and with their preservation and conservation, we will see enormous increases in travel and tourism and by extension the awareness of the items that I am speaking of. Going back, then, in my quotation, ``To pass an Asian Elephant Conservation Act would be one of the most foresighted and yet practical, cost-effective things we can do for the benefit of Americans, people throughout Asia, and the world we all share.'' H.R. 1787 received overwhelming support in the Committee on Resources, again under the leadership of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton]. I was pleased to be an original cosponsor of the bill. Not only does H.R. 1787 enjoy strong bipartisan support in the House, Madam Speaker, but it has also been endorsed by such diverse groups that bears repeating, the American Zoological and Aquarium Association, the World Wildlife Fund, Wildlife Preservation Trust International, the Sierra Club, and Feld Entertainment, emphasizing the partnership we have in the private sector. Feld Entertainment is the owner of the Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey Circus. It is clear that if we are to prevent the extinction of the Asian elephant, a number of coordinated and visible activities must be undertaken by the international community and host-range nations. I believe it bears repeating, Madam Speaker, as to what they might be: Protection of the remaining elephant populations and their habitat from further loss and degradation by establishing and managing special protected areas; Promotion of coexistence between people and elephants by developing and implementing sound management practices that would prevent or reduce conflict; Promotion of effective law enforcement through participation of local communities; Reduction of captures from the wild, and extension of care and humane management of the remaining domesticated population; Madam Speaker, I believe it has been stated but I believe again bears repeating that the Asian elephant as a participant in society as a domesticated work elephant, I was going to say workhorse, I guess is the equivalent, is now finding itself in the situation of being unemployed. The work elements associated with the Asian elephant are disappearing much as the workhorse did, as the great workhorses that my grandfather was associated with as a teamster in Buffalo, NY, the great eight-horse hitches that the great beer wagons that we see advertised now with Budweiser, they were working animals. My grandfather was the manager of the stables that carried baked goods on great wagons throughout Buffalo for the then existing Hall's Bakery. So horses, great workhorses, were displaced by engines, by the internal combustion engine. The same thing is happening to the Asian elephant. The elephants who worked under these circumstances need to be taken care of, need humane management and treatment, and this bill will help agencies and individuals and groups interested in this in completing that task. Finally, restoration of the congenial relationship that previously existed between people and elephants through education and awareness programs. And of course this is where travel and tourism can play a great role. Many groups and individuals contributed to the development of the bill. The Tiger and Rhinoceros Conservation Act is one to be cited. It would be administered by the Secretary of the Interior after consultation with the Administrator of AID. Instead of focusing on remedies appropriate for trade-related conservation issues, this bill emphasizes remedies that would address the human-elephant conflict resolutions that prevails throughout the Asian elephant's natural range. I think I have already made reference, Madam Speaker, to the African elephant and I am particularly grateful to the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], the chair of our committee, who has been instrumental in working with the preservation and conservation of the African elephant and who realized that the Asian elephant emphasis that we have in this bill is an appropriate next step to take. The purpose then of H.R. 1787 is to assist initiatives in the Asian elephant range nations as well as regional and national agencies and organizations whose activities directly or indirectly promote Asian elephant habitat conservation. Then the bill would be funded in a manner so as not to affect funds currently earmarked for the African Elephant Conservation Act and the Rhino and Tiger Act. The legislation would specify that support would be provided for projects that would directly support and promote wild elephant management practices such as monitoring population trends of known populations, assessing the movement and the annual ranging patterns of known populations. We would emphasize law enforcement through community participation, develop management plans for managed elephant ranges, translocation of elephants, conflict resolution initiatives and community outreach and education. It specifically authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to fund projects addressing the use of domesticated elephants as such use relates to conservation of Asian elephants in the wild. It provides for multiplying the impact of funding by authorizing priority to be given projects which have matching funds from private sector sources. In that instance I, too, want to add my congratulations and grateful thanks to our colleague Andy Ireland, who brought this issue to our attention in an extraordinarily comprehensive way and in that context, Madam Speaker, I want to conclude by urging all of our colleagues to take advantage of the pioneering work that was done in the Committee on Resources previously with respect to conservation of the great animals in Africa and Asia and add to it then this great and magnificent representation of the symbiotic relationship of humankind and the animal world in the Asian elephant. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega].

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain to the chair the rollcall numbers on which I missed votes, due to being at the White House this morning. On rollcall No. 507, I would have voted ``yes.'' That was the District of Columbia Appropriation. On rollcall No. 508, the Transportation Appropriation Conference Report, I would have voted ``yes.'' On rollcall No. 509, approving the reading of the Journal, I would have voted ``yes.'' The reason, Mr. Speaker, that those votes were missed was the signing of the National Wildlife Refuge reform bill at the White House this morning.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to H.R. 1122, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. H.R. 1122 has been amended in an effort to clarify the bill's intentions. Yet, H.R. 1122 fails to provide women with the basic protections established in Roe versus Wade. The new definition of what constitutes a partial-birth abortion is vague, convoluted, and confusing. What is a partial delivery of substantial proportion, for example? Doctors and lawyers will not have a clear idea of what is being banned. H.R. 1122 gives any accused physician the right to have his or her conduct reviewed by the State Medical Board before a criminal trial begins. The provision does not give the State Medical Boards the authority to issue advisory positions. The provision only allows the State Medical Boards to comment on the doctor's conduct with respect to the necessity of saving the life of the woman. They cannot comment on whether or not the procedure meets the definition of a partial-birth abortion. Possible conflict of interest in the makeup of the medical boards is not addressed. The provision falsely implies that doctors have some type of protection; they do not. Doctors still have to go through criminal proceedings. In Roe versus Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized a woman's constitutional right of choice. Roe also established that this right is limited after viability, at which point States may ban abortion as long as an exception is provided for cases in which the woman's life or health is at risk. H.R. 1122 fails to make the distinction between pre- and post-viability abortion. Forty States and the District of Columbia ban post-viability abortions. The U.S. Supreme Court has struck a balance between a woman's right to choose and the protection of potential life. H.R. 1122 unfortunately does not clarify the distinction. Intervening in a lawful medical decision is inappropriate, ill advised, and dangerous. It is always in order to question laws and write legislation which may alter existing statutes. H.R. 1122 does not address what is now lawful in a manner which meets the necessary criteria for changing the law.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of the Mollohan-Shays amendment. The amendment removes the bill's current provision that is an impediment to provide for a fair and accurate census in the year 2000. This issue is very important to the people in my district. In fact, this is an issue that is important to all my House colleagues. We must work to ensure that all individuals are counted so that their voices may be heard. The 1990 census missed at least 4 million people because, as the Bush administration's Census Director at the time said, ``enumeration cannot count everybody.'' We in Congress must take steps to resolve and correct this situation. The Mollohan-Shays amendment seeks to address the issue and make the 2000 census more accurate. The National Academy of Sciences and virtually the entire statistical profession, including the American Statistical Association, has endorsed sampling as the best and most efficient way to achieve an accurate census count. The Justice Department under the Reagan, Bush and Clinton administrations has consistently held that sampling is constitutional. Opponents of the amendment claim that sampling opens up the census count to political manipulation. In response, the sponsors of the amendment went out of their way to address that issue. An independent board of experts will monitor every aspect of the census to guard against any bias or manipulation. This safeguard creates a more effective barrier against fraud and error than under the present system. The Congressional Research Service analyzed the Hastert census language that is currently in the bill, and it is quite clear that this language will not work. According to the memorandum, ``The case law makes it clear that this authorization, if enacted, would run afoul of constitutional barriers to congressional conferral either of standing or of ripeness or both.'' The memorandum goes on to say ``* * * it appears extremely likely that the Supreme Court would either strike down the provision, or disregard it.'' If my House colleagues are concerned about constitutionality they cannot support the Hastert language. The Mollohan-Shays amendment works toward a fair and accurate census. I urge my colleagues to support the Mollohan-Shays amendment.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Miller language adopted into H.R. 2267, the Departments of Commerce, Justice and State appropriations bill. These instructions will set aside a small amount of funding for the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys to provide assistance to the victims of human rights abuses in the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands. Since at least 1984, Federal officials have expressed concern about the CNMI alien labor system. Worker complaints over wages and working conditions are continuing undiminished according to the third annual report of the Federal-CNMI Initiative. The Governments of the Philippines and China have expressed concerns about the treatment of their citizens in this U.S. Commonwealth and allegations persist regarding the CNMI's inability to protect workers against crimes such as illegal recruitment, battery, rape, child labor, and forced prostitution. Without Representative Miller's language in H.R. 2267, individuals who have been the subject of human rights abuses--right here in the United States--have only the charity of private relief organizations to rely upon for help. In Hawaii, the Filipino Solidarity Coalition is currently providing sanctuary to a young girl named Katrina who came to Hawaii as a Government witness. When Katrina was 14 she was brought to the CNMI by an employer who promised her a good job and fair wages in the restaurant industry. When she arrived in the CNMI her hopes for a better life were destroyed. She discovered that the employer had lured her to the CNMI under false pretenses. Not only was she confined to her assigned living quarters but she was also forced into service as a prostitute. Katrina had few options and even less money but she escaped her confines and filed suit against her employer with the help of the local Philippine consulate. When Katrina's actions were revealed to her employer, her life was threatened. To escape the abusive situation, the consulate helped her to find refuge in Guam. However, Guam's close proximity to her former employer still put Katrina in a dangerous situation. Through the help of the Filipino Solidarity Coalition, Katrina managed to escape to Hawaii where local donations and a small grant from the Department of Labor helped to provide her shelter, food, and further legal assistance. However, there are many others who remain in the CNMI still suffering the abuse and indignity that Katrina managed to escape. I appreciate the Chairman's support of the Miller language which will help those like Katrina who are victims of human rights abuse, not faraway in a foreign country, but right here in the United States of America.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Miller language adopted into H.R. 2267, the Departments of Commerce, Justice and State Appropriations Bill. These instructions will set aside a small amount of funding for the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys to provide assistance to the victims of human rights abuses in the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands. Since at least 1984, Federal officials have expressed concern about the CNMI alien labor system. Worker complaints over wages and working conditions are continuing undiminished according to the third annual report of the ``Federal-CNMI Initiative''. The governments of the Philippines and China have expressed concern about the treatment of their citizens in this U.S. Commonwealth and allegations persist regarding the CNMI's inability to protect workers against crimes such as illegal recruitment, battery, rape, child labor, and forced prostitution. Without Rep. Miller's language in H.R. 2267, individuals who have been the subject of human rights abuses--right here in the United States--have only the charity of private relief organizations to rely upon for help. In Hawaii, the Filipino Solidarity Coalition is currently providing sanctuary to a young girl named ``Katrina'' who came to Hawaii as a government witness. When Katrina was 14 she was brought to the CNMI by an employer who promised her a good job and fair wages in the restaurant industry. When she arrived in the CNMI her hopes for a better life were destroyed. She discovered that the employer had lured her to the CNMI under false pretenses. Not only was she confined to her assigned living quarters but she was also forced into service as a prostitute. Katrina had few options and even less money but she escaped her confines and filed suit against her employer with the help of the local Philippine consulate. When Katrina's actions were revealed to her employer, her life was threatened. To escape the abusive situation, the consulate helped her to find refuge in Guam. However, Guam's close proximity to her former employer still put Katrina in a dangerous situation. Through the help of the Filipino Solidarity Coalition, Katrina managed to escape to Hawaii where local donations and a small grant from the Department of Labor helped to provide her shelter, food, and further legal assistance. However, there are many others who remain in the CNMI still suffering the abuse and indignity that Katrina managed to escape. I appreciate the Chairman's support of the Miller language which will help those like Katrina who are victims of human rights abuse, not far away in a foreign country, but right here in the United States of America.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Dear friends, we are getting to the end of this discussion, and I do not think we have ever actually taken a look at what it is we are discussing. Here it is, 1,299 closely spaced pages of small print. I am sure the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] have seen this volume. They probably see it in their dreams at night, tumbling off shelves and burying them. But the fact of the matter is that this contains the Constitution, Jefferson's Manual, and the rules and practices of the House of Representatives. That is what we are talking about. That is why I think that this amendment that the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] and I are bringing forward deserves your favorable consideration. We should have the full committee if you are dealing with the two fundamental issues, whether the scope should proceed forward or whether there should be subpoenas issued, to be dealt with in the manner in which it has been discussed with this amendment. I have been told, and I see that the Judiciary chairman is here, that if this is an amendment sponsored by the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] and the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie], it should either pass unanimously or be defeated unanimously. I am not quite sure how that will work out, but I think what it indicates is that this is not a partisan consideration. We are putting this forward because we believe it is in the interest of the House as an institution, because we love this body, because we have sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, and when you defend the House of Representatives, when you defend the basic fundamental integrity of the House, you are defending this Constitution, you are defending these rules. This book is as sacred as we get in a secular context in our House of Representatives in our country. Therefore, I would like to say at this point, then, that the Members, especially the gentleman from Maryland and the gentleman from Louisiana, deserve our thanks for their hard work, their levelheadedness, and I want to say their largeness of spirit. The manner in which this has been conducted is proof of that, and I am very, very grateful for this opportunity to speak on it. All we are saying here is that only the subcommittee authority be renewed from its source when it moves into new areas of investigation. By clarifying that point, we strengthen the measure before us, we strengthen the Ethics Committee and its work, we strengthen the integrity of this House, we strengthen democracy. On that basis, dear friends, I ask for your favorable consideration of this amendment.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I hope all the Members will pay some attention to these remarks because they are personal. Every bit of the discussion to this point has been in the abstract. But I have been through this. I have had someone attack me for no other reason than personal, political gain. I have had to go through the process of being sued for slander by someone who attacked me, who attacked my integrity, who came after me for no purpose other than to try to destroy me politically, and I had to go through it. I had to have an attorney. Anybody who stands here and talks about an outside group being able to come into this House and make a complaint, as if we are cutting off access, people who have no desire other than to come and to take them apart, not just politically but destroy them as a person. I am willing to submit myself at any point to the judgment of my peers in this House. But I am unwilling to open up the floodgates of the crime of slander and libel against a Member that will surely come with this. I have been through it. I ask any Member to think about what it is like when all of this is put out in the newspapers and people ask them about it and the attack is on them, and they wake up in the middle of the night in frustration and rage, knowing that they are innocent. I was attacked by somebody who altered a tape on the grounds that he knew what I was really saying, so he had altered the tape to make sure that everybody else would know it. He found an attorney that could come after me. And the day before the trial started, after all the depositions, after all the accusations, the suit was withdrawn. I was left to hang. And do my colleagues know what the attorney said to me? ``If you want to counter sue, you are going to have to pay for that.'' This was done for no other purpose than for political attack. I respect the work that was done with this. Believe me, where the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] is concerned, where the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] is concerned, no one respects them more. They have the most thankless job. I sincerely mean that. I respect this. But the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], the chair of the committee, has said that this will provide an agenda set by outsiders; and I guarantee my colleagues, that is what is going to happen. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the chair of the Committee on the Judiciary, has said that we have to prevent the injection of politics. And I tell my colleagues, if we do not have this amendment, we will have the injection of politics with a vengeance.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote 413 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes''.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House the speech of Ms. Tiffany Monroy, a student at Sacred Heart Academy of Honolulu, which won the Voice of Democracy competition sponsored by the Honolulu Veterans of Foreign Wars. I certainly give my personal congratulations to Ms. Monroy, the daughter of Daniel and Loretta Monroy. I also would like to express my appreciation to VFW Post 1540 of Honolulu and its Ladies' Auxiliary for sponsoring the event. I trust that it will provide inspiration to my colleagues as we deliberate and endeavor to legislate solutions to the issues our Nation faces. Democracy--Above and Beyond--1996-97 VFW Voice of Democracy Scholarship Program (By Hawaii Winner Tiffany Monroy) A mother had three children: Adam, Owen, and Daniel. Upon dying, the mother gave Adam to his banished father to be raised. Owen was given to his aunts and uncles to be raised. Finally, Daniel was given to the community to be raised by all. Years went by and the boys grew up. Adam became a rotund man who ate all he wanted when he wanted and no one could stop him from doing what he wanted. Owen grew up into a portly fellow who shared whatever he wanted with an esoteric group of friends. Daniel developed into a toned, lean, tall man, because he ate and worked depending upon the prosperity and needs of the community. It was he who soared above and beyond his brothers. These men soon became leaders of nations, taking with them the only governing methods they knew. When these individuals died, their governments lived on. Adam became autocracy, Owen became oligarchy, and Daniel became democracy. Like Daniel, who towered over his siblings, democracy remains above and beyond autocracy and oligarchy. The three forms of government are like ladders competing to reach a great land--a land of great milk, great honey, and great chocolate--which coincidentally is at a great height. The amount of rungs a climbing individual has is in direct proportion to how many people have the power and authority to rule. ``Contestant #1, with the ruling power in the hand of one sole individual, is Autocracy. Contestant #2, with the ruling power in the hands of a few people, is Oligarchy. Finally, last but not least, contestant #3, with the ruling power in the hands of many people is Democracy. Okay, contestants, on your mark get set, go! Wow, I don't know how Autocracy is going to get to the top with only one rung and I can't see how Oligarchy's gonna make it up . . . But hark! Look at Democracy go! He's got enough rungs to get him to the top and then some! Go Democracy go! And the winner without any competition is Democracy! Just look at him standing at the zenith sparkling with sweat, way up above and beyond the other two!'' Democracy is able to maintain itself above and beyond any other form of government because of the level of participation democracy calls for from those who are governed. It calls on everyone to participate in their government since democracy is the form of government in which rule is by the people. As Pericles of Athens said, ``Our constitution is named a democracy because it is in the hands not the few, but of the many.'' In a democracy people cannot sit back with their arms folded and leave decisions up to a sole person. Instead, they must unfold their arms, stand up, and take action for what they believe in. Democracy gives people the opportunity to be active participants in the government which rules them. Perhaps even better, democracy makes those who are governed care about their government. Because the power is in the hands of the people, it is the people themselves who must take responsibility for what happens to them, since it is ultimately their choice. Therefore, they care about their government even more than those people who are ruled by autocracies or oligarchies. The caring, active participation that democracy calls for is what keeps democracy high above and above any other form of government. Democracy remains untouched by any other form of government because there essentially no one ruling over the people. The marrow of democracy, the very core of this type of government is the fact that the people rules themselves. There is no almighty leader who says ``this is the way things go'' nor is there an omnipotent group who dictates ``this is how all things shall be done.'' Rather, in a democracy, the people choose for themselves who they want and what they want and need. Perhaps Abraham Lincoln captured the quintessence of democracy by saying democracy is a ``government of the people, by the people, and for the people.'' This is exactly what puts democracy above and beyond any other government: the people have the ultimate say. Through every age democracy has and always will remain above and beyond any other form of government because it calls for caring participation from the people by putting the power directly into the hands of the people. Democracy will forever stay above and beyond any other form of government because no one else has a ladder with as many rungs.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote 397 from yesterday, I inadvertently missed the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Rather than get into that and rather than allowing this very important discussion to merely become another point in the overall budget discussion of this particular bill, I plead with the gentleman from Arizona, let us take this up in another venue, at another time, working together, Democrats and Republicans, on behalf of all the children, on behalf of our military personnel so that we can deal with the issue where it should be dealt with within the Department of Defense budget. I would be happy to work with him and my good friend from Mississippi and anybody else who is interested. I thank the gentleman for his kind attention, and I hope my remarks are received in the temper that I meant them in the first place, that is, that we need to focus on the children, we can focus on the children and perhaps if this discussion keeps going with this particular amendment, that might be lost regardless of the good intentions of the author.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Rodriguez amendment, just indicating that in one area, and I am sure it can be emulated in many areas across the Nation, in region 15, the Comprehensive Center for the Pacific will take care of areas in the most remote part of the jurisdiction of the United States, areas in the Pacific like American Samoa, Micronesia, the Mariana Islands, Guam, et cetera. Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the amendment on the basis that Mr. Rodriguez has been able to put forward his amendment on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition and I am sorry to have to do this, particularly because I value my friendship with the gentleman from Arizona and with my dear friend, the gentleman from Mississippi, as well. As someone on the steering committee of the impact aid coalition and someone who was education chair in my State and had to try and deal with the implications of the failure to have the level of funding necessary for impact aid, I find myself in this uncomfortable position of having to oppose the amendment. I hope, actually, by the time this discussion is over they maybe would consider withdrawing it or not bringing it to a vote in the hopes that we will not end up in a situation where people can say, ``Oh, well, I was for impact aid and you were against impact aid.'' Because, very frankly, and I hope that we can get attention for everything that is being said from everyone before we are through, that when this comes down to a question of funding, which is what it does, we are actually in the wrong venue. This should be a line item in the Department of Defense budget. This is not a position, I would tell the gentleman from Arizona, that I am just coming up with in response to this amendment. This argument goes back to an argument I had as chair of the education committee in the State of Hawaii and brought up here to Washington almost 2 decades ago. This should be a line item in the Department of Defense budget. For those Members who do not know this, we fund our schools overseas at 100 cents on the dollar. Not my answer to the gentleman from Arizona, but my response, and I trust he would understand the difference both from a political sense and personally, is that I not only understand the capital problem that he is having, the capital assets problem in terms of the facilities in the school, but also in paying the teachers and in the operating expenses that are involved. To have the children, the dependents of our military personnel, dependent on the particular circumstances of property taxes, however we do the funding in Arizona or Hawaii or Mississippi or elsewhere, is virtually, from my point of view, immoral. It is not fair. Those children are there by the assignment of the U.S. Government and their parents are there in our name acting in our behalf, and this should be funded out of the Department of Defense as an obligation. If we can fund our schools at 100 cents on the dollar in Korea, in Germany, or wherever, and I suppose if things keep on going, in Bosnia by the time we get through, then we should certainly do it in the confines and the boundaries of the United States of America. My first essential point to the gentleman is that rather than pit workers against children or one element of government against another element of government, or however people choose to characterize this debate for their own purposes, not for ours in terms of our discussion, we are going to end up with that kind of a dichotomy being put forward, and I believe it is a false dichotomy. I do not doubt for a moment that the funding is needed in exactly the way that he says it is, and I would support it. This is why I think we should work together within the coalition, and this is no news to those who know of my participation in the coalition, that we should move this, and I would like to work with the gentleman, and anybody else who is interested in it, in moving the whole funding nexus from the Department of Education and into where it properly belongs, into the Department of Defense. Pending that, I think it is an exercise not so much in futility, but an exercise in false confrontation or false dichotomy to try to pull the money from, whether it is NLRB or wherever else it might have come from, in order to do the necessary funding here. We need to make the fight, it seems to me, on the basis of the merits of the Impact Aid Program across the board and that that should be funded as a result of our commitment to the dependents of our military personnel across the board. I do want to say that rather than continue in a vein as to which one of us is more morally correct or whether or not one is depriving an essential necessity of governmental operation in the United States of the funding necessary to do its job in order to benefit the children.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

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

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, might I ask? I noticed that the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham], who has been associated with this bill from the beginning is on the floor and at the podium, and I would like to yield to him for remarks he might make while I consider this reservation.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I will ask the gentleman from New Jersey to explain his request.

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

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, today I will support H.R. 2014, the Taxpayer Relief Act. Yet I cannot rise without sharing my greatest concern with the tax bill, the airline ticket tax. The changes proposed in the airline ticket tax will have an adverse effect on Hawaii's people and on our economy. The segment portion of the domestic ticket tax is unfair. It is particularly unfair to Hawaii where Aloha, Hawaiian, and Mahalo, our local inter-island carriers, provide short-haul trips between the islands. Our unique geography as an island chain makes air travel a necessity. Unlike other areas of the country, we do not have a choice. If individuals want to travel from island to island, we have to fly. In order to make it economical for our people, Aloha, Hawaiian, and Mahalo island hop. The domestic airline ticket tax shifts the burden to low- cost, short-haul carriers. These are our local carriers and this will hurt Hawaii. The ticket tax increase on international flights from $6 to $24 is another concern. Tourism is Hawaii's largest industry. It is a large industry for many States of the Union. International visitors are a vital part of our tourism industry. Mr. Speaker, I will not dwell any further on the ticket tax except to say that I will work with all my energy to repeal these provisions in the future as we proceed to a tax bill next year. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2014. The conference report we are voting on today is an improvement over the version that initially passed the House in June. I voted against that measure for a number of reasons: It denied the full benefits of the child deduction to hard-working, low-income taxpayers who avail themselves of the earned income tax credit; it opened up enormous loopholes that would have fully or partially excluded millions of American workers from the protection of labor laws and fundamental benefits like Social Security and worker compensation; and it short changed low and middle-income taxpayers, denying them a fair share of its tax cuts. The bill before us today remedies those deficiencies in whole or large measure. Yesterday, the House passed the spending bill that sets our Nation on a path to have a balanced budget by 2002. The bill we are voting on today provides tax relief for our citizens--tax relief that is paid for. We have arrived at this point because of the courageous vote taken in 1993. The 1993 budget agreement was a 5-year deficit reduction package. It was a fiscally sound decision. As a result of the deficit reduction package our Nation has a healthy economy. Unfortunately, my constituents in Hawaii have not benefited from the economic upswing to the same extent as the rest of the Nation. Hawaii needs an economic stimulus. The balanced budget tax relief agreement we are voting on today will help us. It is not a silver bullet, but it will benefit a great many hard-pressed people and small businesses in Hawaii. I am voting for this bill not because it is perfect, but because on the balance it helps working families and the middle class. It helps the people of Hawaii. The bill helps Hawaii families. It provides a child tax credit of $400 a child in 1998 and increases to $500 a child thereafter for children age 16 and under. The credit phases out for couples with adjusted gross incomes of $110,000 and individuals with incomes of $75,000. The bill helps Hawaii college students. It provides a tax credit of up to $1,500 a year for the first 2 years of college and a tax credit of up to $1,000 for later years. Eligibility phases out for couples with incomes between $80,000 and $100,000 and individuals with incomes of between $50,000 and $60,000. The bill helps Hawaii homeowners. Married couples may exclude up to $500,000--single individuals may exclude up to $250,000--of capital gains from the sale of a primary residence. In Hawaii, this provision will be particularly helpful to residents whose principal investment is their home. The bill provides Hawaii with broad based capital gains reduction. Capital gains come from the owning of assets such as stock, bonds, homes, real estate, and businesses. The top capital gains tax rate drops from 28 percent to 20 percent. This rate will drop further to 18 percent, effective in 2001, for individuals who hold assets for 5 years or longer. For married couples with incomes less than $41,200 the capital gains tax rate drops from 15 percent to 10 percent. The rate will drop further to 8 percent, effective in 2001, for married couples who currently earn less than $41,200 and who hold assets for 5 years or longer. The bill provides Hawaii with estate tax relief. The estate tax will increase from the current $600,000 to $1 million. It will be phased in over a 10-year period. The bill provides Hawaii with expanded IRA--Individual Retirement Account--opportunities. It creates new IRA Plus accounts. Contributions are not deductible, but interest, dividends, and capital gains accumulate tax free. Allows penalty free withdrawals for first time home purchases. Further, withdrawals are tax free if the account is held for at least 5 years and the account holder is at least 59\1/2\. Income limits on traditional IRA's are raised. The bill helps Hawaii small business. Self-employed small business people will be able to deduct 100 percent of their health and insurance costs--the current deduction is 40 percent, reinstates the home office business deduction, and provides an immediate jump in the estate tax threshold to $1.3 million--$2.6 million for couples--for small family farms and businesses. This provision is important, because it enables continued family ownership of small farms and businesses from one generation to the next. Yet, I cannot rise without sharing my greatest concern with the tax bill: the airline ticket tax. The changes proposed in the airline ticket tax will have an adverse affect on Hawaii's people and our economy. The segment portion of the domestic ticket tax is unfair. It is particularly unfair to Hawaii where Aloha, Hawaiian, and Mahalo, our local interisland carriers, provide short-haul trips between the islands. Our unique geography as an island chain makes air travel a necessity. Unlike other areas of the country we do not have a choice. If individuals want to travel from Island to island we have to fly. In order to make it economical for our people Aloha, Hawaiian, and Mahalo island hop. The domestic airline ticket tax shifts the burden to low- cost short haul carriers. These are our local carriers. This will hurt Hawaii. The ticket tax increase on international flights from $6 to $24 is another concern. Tourism is Hawaii's largest industry. International visitors are a vital part of our tourism industry. The change in the ticket tax on international flights puts a greater tax burden on international visitors. International tourism is a major foreign exchange earner for the United States. It is one of the bright spots in our balance of payments picture. It generates millions of American jobs. Why do we create a disincentive to travel to the United States. Mr. Speaker, I will not dwell on the airline ticket tax any further, except to say that I will work with all my energy to repeal these provisions in the future. This is an important day for the people of Hawaii and our Nation. H.R. 2014 provides the people of Hawaii and our Nation with tax relief. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.