Neil Abercrombie

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

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

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, before I make my remarks, I would like to extend my gratitude to the gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert]. I have had the pleasure of working with him in the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources of the Committee on Resources where he was the chair and I was the ranking member on that committee. We got to know each other very well, able to understand our problems and work to solve them in a mutual fashion. It turns out by sad coincidence that we had a mutual interest in the Veterans' Cemetery Protection Act. Mr. Speaker, I will relate to Members in the course of my remarks the circumstances that took place at Punchbowl and elsewhere out in the Hawaiian Islands with respect to the desecration of our cemeteries there. It was with an equal degree of sadness that I learned that the gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert] had experienced similar problems and difficulties in Riverside and we found out that this was in fact a nationwide problem. With his usual regard for acting quickly on matters, the gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert] and I were able to put together this bill and receive the kind and prompt attention of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] in the Committee on the Judiciary. I am sure I am speaking for the gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert] and myself in expressing not only our personal regard to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], but with respect to this particular legislation, the promptness with which the gentleman and his staff dealt with this particular bill is something to be admired and we are very, very grateful to him. I want to thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] as well for making a significant contribution in improving the bill. I am sure that the gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert] agrees with me that the amendments that were put in during committee have been very, very beneficial to the bill. I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump] for his interest right from the very, very beginning, obviously with his background and experience in the Committee on Veterans' Affairs; nonetheless, his approval of and support for the bill has been very valuable in moving it forward to this point. I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] for his interest in the bill. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues can tell from the list of individuals that I have spoken about today that this is a nonpartisan bill. It has nothing to do with political parties; it has everything to do with our regard for the United States of America and the symbolic importance of what is involved in the Veterans' Cemetery Protection Act. Mr. Speaker, today then I rise to voice my strong support for H.R. 1532, the Veterans' Cemetery Protection Act of 1997 which I am introducing, as I indicated, along with my colleague from California [Mr. Calvert]. This bill instructs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to significantly increase the criminal penalties for theft and wilful vandalism at national cemeteries. The penalties under this bill are clear and would send an unmistakable message to those who chose to desecrate the final resting place of our veterans. In a national cemetery anyone convicted of vandalism that causes a damage of less than $1,000 can be fined and serve a maximum prison term of 1 year. Anyone convicted of vandalism that exceeds $1,000 can receive penalties of a maximum 10-year prison term and a fine. In addition, anyone convicted of hiding, stealing or selling national cemetery property could be sentenced to a maximum 15-year prison term and corresponding fine. Mr. Speaker, I know for some Members this may be almost the first time they are hearing this kind of discussion. It may sound to them almost impossible that anyone would be hiding, stealing or selling national cemetery property, but unfortunately this is a fact of contemporary life. The time to act on this legislation therefore is now. How many more times do we want to open the newspaper, listen to a radio account, or watch the evening news and learn of another act of shocking desecration occurring at one of our national cemeteries? Let me recount the most recent examples for my colleagues. In 1994, a grave was opened at Ball's Bluff National Cemetery, and the remains of the soldier were scattered about presumably by a relic hunter. In 1996, Riverside National Cemetery, as the gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert] indicated, the second largest national cemetery in the Nation, was vandalized by a person or persons who stole engraved bronze markers from 128 graves. A few months before, thieves stole over 500 markers from a storage facility at the cemetery. They attempted to sell the markers to a recycling plant for financial gain. Finally, the most recent act of wilful vandalism, which occurred in Hawaii and New Jersey. On April 19, 1997 seven Oahu cemeteries, including the Hawaii Veterans' Cemetery in Kaneohe and the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific at Punchbowl were vandalized. Racist and profane words were spray-painted on grave markers, cemetery walls and even on the chapel of the National Memorial Cemetery. These acts were an insult to the people buried there, their families and the entire Hawaii community. I feel deeply for the relatives who are still experiencing the pain caused by this outrage. Mr. Speaker, I can scarcely get across today in words the anguish that people felt when viewing the circumstances of the vandalism at Punchbowl and elsewhere. What still gives one faith in the human spirit to triumph over tragedy is the pure unselfishness of the State and local government, veterans groups and community individuals who stepped up to the task of repairing the damage. Currently the estimated costs of repairing and cleaning up these cemeteries is between $20,000 and $25,000. Almost immediately Governor Benjamin Cayetano pledged to mobilize veterans, active duty U.S. military, the Hawaii National Guard and youth groups like the Hawaii Youth Challenge. He asked Maj. Gen. Edward Richardson, the State Adjutant General, and Walter Ozawa, Veterans Services Director, to work with Adm. Joseph Prueher, the Pacific Commander in Chief, to enlist help in the joint cleanup effort. The human spirit was renewed by the efforts of the Paralyzed Veterans of America, whose president, Ken Huber, called the desecration of the national cemetery an unconscionable act and affront to all the men and women in the Armed Services. The Paralyzed Veterans notified Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jesse Brown that on behalf of the PVA members and in recognition of the sacrifices of all veterans the PVA would cover the cost of repairing and restoring the national cemetery. Other local Hawaii veterans groups posted reward moneys for information leading to the apprehension and conviction of these vandals. The spirit was further renewed by the actions of individuals, more than 700 of whom signed up to help at Punchbowl Cemetery. Because of the expertise and harmful chemicals required for most of the cleanup, only a handful could be used at any one time. But that did not stop Vi DeCaires from working to clean a grave, scrubbing the granite marker with a toothbrush. She said the people buried here have given so much to us. I just wanted to give back. Dorothy Tamashiro volunteered because her husband Harold is buried at Punchbowl. He was a member of the World War II 100th Infantry Battalion. According to Dorothy, ``when I saw the news I started to cry. So when the phone number came up on the screen I volunteered.'' Then there was Lilla LeVine, who worked to clean the grave of Army Sgt. Maj. Earl R. Davidson, a veteran of World War II, Korea, and Vietnam. ``How sad to think he did all this and this would happen to him,'' she said. ``He is a person, not just a stone.'' ``He is a person, not just a stone. He had a life and a family and he fought for his country through three wars. I hope he knows we are taking care of this as much as we can.'' And most recently, on May 18, vandalism estimated at $10,000 darkened the sky of the 133-year-old Beverly, New Jersey National Cemetery where Veterans of Foreign War posts from throughout the State have come together on each Memorial Day for 52 years. Vandals tore down flagpoles, pulled memorial benches from their cement foundations and ruined the entrance garden. Here again veterans groups have posted reward moneys for information leading to the apprehension of the vandals as well as money to repair the damages to the cemetery. I am pleased to inform my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that because of the efforts of a number of individuals and groups, the last of the hate messages and graffiti was removed just prior to Memorial Day at Punchbowl with the help of the $21,000 donated thus far to the cleanup. Vandals can never ``tarnish what our heroes have left us,'' Honolulu Mayor Jeremy Harris said during the Memorial Day ceremony. Today we are responding to the call to keep our heroes untarnished with the introduction of this act. Our Constitution provides many freedoms and rights. It does not provide us the right to physically destroy what is not ours, even if it is to send a message. With rights come responsibilities, and it is our responsibility today as Members of Congress to ensure the right to be laid to rest in hallowed ground, like those men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our Nation, is not compromised or profaned.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, today represents a culmination of 7 years of effort, bipartisan I would like to say, nonpartisan effort. I particularly want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman]. This has been a dream of his since before I came into the Congress. I have been privileged to work with him on this issue, been privileged to work with the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] and the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] to try and put together this legislation which will renew and revitalize American shipbuilding. Mr. Chairman, people expect in the United States of America that our strategic interests are going to be met, that our national interests are understood in a context of having a modern merchant marine industry. And yet we do not have it. On the contrary, it has been virtually wiped out. I do not believe, Mr. Chairman, that the average American understood that, even at this time. Yet this legislation and this reform package that has been put together under the leadership of the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] is going to achieve that. As a result of the passage of this reform bill, we are going to see American ships built in American shipyards by American workers, flagged in America, and sailed by American seafarers. That is what is going to be accomplished today. We are doing it in a context that marries the public and the private sector. This takes us into a new age of shipbuilding, the revitalization of the American merchant marine. A vibrant, prosperous American merchant marine is in the direct strategic interests of the United States. Without it, the national interests of the United States, as manifested in military doctrine and material, are served in name only. Mr. Chairman, by voting for the reform bill today in support of the chairman's innovative amendment, we will give the Navy the authority to enter into long-term charters for the construction of strategic sealift and special mission auxiliary ships. This authority is absolutely essential because the Navy must replace these types of ships in its fleet. Many of these ships are near the end of their useful life. In fact, the average age of 21 of them is over 30 years. Just as a car, an older ship needs maintenance, Mr. Chairman, it gets more expensive by the age, it becomes less reliable. Unlike our personal cars, however, these ships have a critical mission. And we can ill afford to place our young men and women in harm's way and not have the sealift capability to provide them with the supplies and equipment that are essential during the perilous hours of need. It does not make good sense to throw good money after bad in trying to make Bandaid repairs to extend the life of a ship that is operating past its time. We are in a new era of fiscal responsibility that is recognized by the chairman where a premium must be placed on finding innovative ways to provide the Navy with the ships they need now, this century, not the next. Charter and build is the cost-effective answer that will permit the Navy to replace their aging sealift on auxiliary ships. For the last several years, Mr. Chairman, acquisition reform has received well- deserved attention and most particularly in our Committee on National Security. Charter and build is in total keeping with the spirit and intent of acquisition reform; and equally important, it allows the private sector to participate in providing a cost-effective means to meet the auxiliary requirements of the Department of defense. It creates U.S. jobs, which will be filled by taxpayers who fuel the Treasury and our Government with revenue that allows us to provide for the common defense. For all of these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I request of all of the membership today that they pay close attention to the sea change, no pun intended, Mr. Chairman, that is going to take place with the passage of the reform bill. After today, we will have taken the effective first step in seeing to it that not just reform has come to the American merchant marine, but that a new day, a new dawn is here for the American merchant marine. We have the chairman to thank. We have all the Members to thank, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], as I said, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman]. I hope that the first ship that comes out will take into consideration the chairman of our merchant marine panel, who has been so crucial in seeing to it that this day has finally come. Mr. Chairman, this is one of the proud days for this House, I think. We will have taken the steps necessary to see to it that an American merchant marine is reborn. Mr. Chairman, I ask for the full consideration of this reform bill by all the Members.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak]. (Mr. STUPAK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr].

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] has the duty to close the debate. I have four more speakers. I am not sure whether he has more speakers and how much time is left for him, and I wonder if I might impose upon him to allow our speakers to catch up so that we can conclude properly.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant]. Other speakers have had more time but, as we know, the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Traficant] will be able to conclude his remarks within 1 minute.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Johnson].

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, as always, I am very grateful to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton]. This is in the spirit within which this bill was concluded, and I very much appreciate it. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Tauscher].

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he might consume to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Green]. (Mr. GREEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Stabenow] to conclude and close out our side of the debate.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I also rise in support of the Farr amendment.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Could the chairman kindly tell me how much allotted time remains both with the Science Committee and with my committee?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume and I rise in strong support of the bill. However, I would like to add that, hopefully, the funding for Sea Grant, the funding numbers for the Sea Grant proposal here, are more accurate than those recently assigned to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner]. This represents a compromise, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps those numbers the gentleman from Wisconsin had assigned to him by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] also represent a compromise. But this represents a compromise, Mr. Chairman, between the Committee on Resources and the Committee on Science, which shares jurisdiction with the Committee on Resources over the research component of Sea Grant. The bill reauthorizes the National Sea Grant College Program, which for over 30 years has addressed important local, regional, and national marine resource management problems through education, research, and public outreach. The compromise text, Mr. Chairman, reauthorizes Sea Grant for 3 years. It clarifies the roles of the national office and the Sea Grant colleges. It strengthens competitive peer review, as the gentleman from New Jersey mentioned, particularly 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 force some belt-tightening at the national Sea Grant office but will provide for modest growth in funding for programs and projects carried out by the Sea Grant colleges themselves. These activities are the heart and soul of the Sea Grant Program and are parts of the program that must be preserved, especially in difficult budget times. Since 1968, speaking from personal experience, Mr. Chairman, the University of Hawaii's Sea Grant College Program has been a useful resource in the areas of aquaculture, marine biotechnology, coastal processes, coastal pollution and reef ecology. In the State of Hawaii marine resources are vital. Hawaii's coastal resources, which are world-renowned tourist attractions, generate nearly 40 percent of our gross State product. The value of our coastal resources is dependent on their health and beauty. I want to express my appreciation for the cooperation the minority has received from the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] and the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] and their staffs. H.R. 437 is not really a bipartisan bill, Mr. Chairman, it is a nonpartisan bill. I think all of us who represent coastal areas have long appreciated the benefits of this practical, noncontroversial program. We would have been on the floor nearly 2 years ago reauthorizing this popular and pragmatic program if ideology had not interfered. On that note, I appreciate the cooperation extended by the leadership of the Committee on Science in the person of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] and his staff in working out this compromise. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the work, in addition, of my good friend, whom I had the pleasure of working with in a previous committee, the Minerals Subcommittee, the gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert]. I hope this new spirit of cooperation leads to more timely authorization of marine research and oceanography programs, which are so vital not only to this Nation but to the planet, Mr. Chairman, over which the two committees share jurisdiction. This is a good start on a very good bill reauthorizing a popular program. I urge the House and all of our colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Weygand]. (Mr. WEYGAND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell].

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 1420. This compromise clearly establishes the conservation mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System while ensuring the compatible wildlife-dependent recreation continues to have a place within the system as well. It requires that all uses of the system meet the same objective tests of compatibility. If and when hunting, bird watching, or other forms of wildlife- dependent recreation are found compatible with wildlife conservation, they are given priority treatment over nonwildlife-dependent uses of the system. This is a sound policy that ensures conservation is paramount, while providing maximum opportunities for compatible wildlife-dependent recreation for the public. Our job here is to provide a good blueprint for managing the refuge system and let the wildlife management professional take it from there. This bill does that. We should pass it and let the professional get back to work. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1420 is a good example of bipartisanship, perhaps more appropriately, nonpartisanship. I want to commend Secretary Babbitt, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], the ranking member, and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], who is here, as mentioned by the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], and the various interest groups for all their hard work in crafting legislation that satisfies a diversity of needs while preserving a fundamental mission of the system. Mr. Speaker, I might say that that lineup of people that I just enumerated is a living example of diversity of needs while preserving the fundamental mission of the House of Representatives. Perhaps we can apply the same approach to address the backlog of management needs plaguing our wildlife refuges. If the refuge system had adequate resources, the various user groups might not be fighting each other so much over access and management decisions. The House's adoption of this legislation today is a significant step forward in recognizing the importance of wildlife refuges and addressing their problems. I urge, as the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] did, all of our colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega], and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control that time.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 408, the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act, with all due respect to my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilcrest] and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton]. This bill is not about protecting dolphins; this bill is about the U.S. Department of State arbitrarily dictating changes in U.S. law without consulting Congress until after the deed is done. I have further remarks, Mr. Chairman, that I will submit, but in the interest of time, I would just like to follow up on that remark. During committee markup I offered an amendment on bycatch reduction. The issue of bycatch should be addressed in this fishery and every other fishery with a strong bycatch reduction requirement. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilcrest], I am happy to say, was willing to accept the amendment. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] was willing to cooperate. However, word came down to the committee that the State Department was firmly opposed to any changes in the legislation. The State Department does not want to accept the amendment, did not want to accept our amendment, because it would strengthen the commitment by including specific bycatch reduction. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 408, the International Dolphin Program Act. With all due respect to my good friends from Maryland, Mr. Gilchrest, and from New Jersey, Mr. Saxton, this bill is not about protecting dolphins. This bill is about the U.S. Department of State arbitrarily dictating changes in U.S. law without consulting Congress until after the deed is done. In 1990, Mexico and Venezuela filed a formal complaint with GATT after the Mexican tuna was embargoed for not achieving comparability with the United States tuna fleet. The GATT panel ruled that the United States had no right to use trade restrictions on a product based on the way the product was made or harvested. This finding has broad implications for a variety of U.S. consumer protection, health and safety, and environmental laws. However it is important to point out that the panel did not address the dolphin-safe label itself. Since the ruling, Mexico has been pressuring the United States to change its dolphin protection law so that they can sell their tuna in the United States. No one knew until 1995 that the State Department and Mexico were negotiating a deal which is now known as the Panama Declaration. This agreement requires major changes to U.S. law. The State Department did not consult with Congress during the entire process, and now this agreement is being rammed through Congress. By codifying the Panama Declaration, H.R. 408, eliminates the embargo provision in the Marine Mammal Protection Act, which is based on the rate of dolphin kill. The bill allows tuna caught by nations which are members of the Inter American Tropical Tuna Commission [IATTC] to enter the U.S. market if the total mortality for all nations remains below 5,000 annually and allow some tuna caught by the IATTC nations to be labeled ``dolphin safe.'' This dolphin mortality level is double the amount of the 1996 dolphin mortality level for Mexico and other nations fishing in the eastern Pacific. There is no reason why the acceptable dolphin kill level should be set at 5,000, thus allowing IATTC nations a higher dolphin mortality for dolphin safe tuna sold in the United States. The measure also narrows the definition of ``dolphin safe'' so that the only excludable tuna would be that which involved the killing of no dolphins during the fishing operation. It would, however, allow unlimited harassment of dolphins. Mexico and other nations want this provision so that their tuna will be bought by unsuspecting Americans who trust that the tuna was caught without harassing dolphins. Mexico and other nations know the American consumer will not tolerate the slaughter of dolphins. This is why the U.S. tuna canning industry adopted the dolphin-safe label in the first place. Without a dolphin- safe label on tuna, consumers will not buy it. We should not change the definition without scientific evidence. Supporters of H.R. 408 claim that scientific information supports the legislation. This is not accurate. The National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS] conducted a study of tuna by-catch in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean from dolphin, schoolfish, and log sets from 1989 to 1992. A pattern emerged showing that by-catch was generally low or nonexistent in dolphin sets, low to moderate in school sets and high to very high in log sets. There is no doubt that a fishing method using the chase and netting of dolphins results in a lower by-catch of other species, such as sea turtles and sharks. While the by-catch issue has merit and deserves attention, the Panama Agreement does not resolve the problem. Other nondolphin methods of fishing for tuna are not being considered. More importantly, scientists have no evidence that the impacts of high speed chase and netting are not harmful to dolphins or dolphin populations. Some dolphin populations are chased more than once a day, with more than 3 million animals chased every year. Information from the NMFS biologists studying these populations indicates that they are currently stable at about one-fifth of their original size. NMFS' own scientists and the IATTC have reported that these stocks show no signs of recovery. We have no idea if the dolphin-set method impacts the dolphin fecundity or mortality. During committee markup I offered an amendment on bycatch reduction. The issue of bycatch should be addressed in this fishery and every other fishery with strong bycatch reduction requirements. Mr. Gilchrest was willing to accept the amendment. However, word came down to the committee that the State Department was firmly opposed to any changes in the legislation. The State Department didn't want to accept the amendment, because it would strengthen the commitment by including specific bycatch reduction program. What really troubles me is that the State Department did not base their position on the bycatch reduction program on science or the environment. Instead, the State Department's sole concern was political expediency. The State Department told Congress that H.R. 408 is unamendable. They have rejected any attempts at compromise. Congress should not acquiesce to a precedent that lowers our environmental laws, consumer protection, and health and safety laws just because another nation desires to sell its products in America. If the goal of H.R. 408 is to increase trade and open our markets to Mexico, the State Department should come clean. They should not hide behind a veil of environmentalism. Let's vote to protect dolphins and the environment, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 408.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the additional funding for the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants and Children [WIC] under H.R. 1469, the Supplemental Appropriations bill for FY 1997. Hawaii is among the twelve states that would have to reduce current WIC caseloads without the approval of $76 million in supplemental funds. Nearly one-third of Hawaii women and children who receive WIC, or 9,300 participants, would lose their access to nutritional assistance. Without the additional funding, the increasing numbers of Hawaii women and children who qualify for WIC may not receive it. Hawaii's WIC program has long served the low-income population of children and pregnant, postpartum, and breast-feeding women who are at risk for nutritional deficiencies. In the last year, Hawaii's WIC program has been providing nutritious supplemental foods, quality nutrition education, high-risk counseling, breast-feeding promotion, and referrals to health care and social services to 30,532 participants. This is a 13 percent increase in caseload over the past year. Considering the slow recovery of Hawaii's economy and the impact of welfare reform, the WIC program becomes an even more valuable resource to the 50,000 women, infants and children estimated to be in need of the services. Earlier this month, the State of Hawaii implemented major cost containment strategies to stay within the budget provided. Current WIC participants are being told to make ``best buys'' to do more with less money, like buying powdered milk. These cost saving adjustments may be difficult to implement but they are much less costly than the long-term consequences of forcing 9,300 low-income women, infants and children out of the program.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained on rollcall 119. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of H.R. 3, the Juvenile Crime Control Act of 1997. This highly focused bill deals with violent juvenile offenders on the Federal level. H.R. 3 addresses the issue of incarcerating violent juvenile offenders at the Federal level by lowering the age at which a judge may waive a violent juvenile offender into adult court; treats juvenile records the same as adult records; and increases accountability for juveniles adjudicated delinquent and their parents. The measure also encourages placing juveniles younger than 16 in suitable juvenile facility prior to disposition or sentencing. For juveniles 16 and older, it provides for their detention in a suitable place designated by the Attorney General. This by no means requires that juvenile offenders on the Federal level be housed with adults. In addition, H.R. 3 provides that every juvenile detained prior to disposition or sentencing shall be provided with reasonable safety and security. H.R. 3 provides incentives for States to emulate this new approach. The grant program in H.R. 3 would be authorized at $500 million for 3 years. States must meet certain requirements if they are to obtain money from grants authorized by H.R. 3--e.g., they must try violent juvenile felons as young as 15 as adults; they must treat juvenile records like adult records; and they must permit parent-accountability orders. States which meet all the criteria could use the money for various initiatives such as establishing and maintaining accountability-based programs that work with juvenile offenders who are referred by law enforcement agencies, or which are designed in cooperation with law enforcement officials, to protect students and school personnel from drugs, gangs, and youth violence. Although I support H.R. 3, I realize it does not address the issue of nonviolent offenders on the State and Federal level, nor does it provide prevention and rehabilitation programs for juvenile offenders. These issues should be addressed when Congress reauthorizes the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974. That is the appropriate time and the correct venue to aid our communities in developing programs to help youth stay away from crime, gangs, drugs and guns. Juvenile justice officials in Hawaii have asked for help in funding prevention programs, substance abuse programs, support programs for children who have little or no family life, and programs that would give State court judges an alternative program to deal with certain juvenile offenders instead of sending them to correctional facilities. I am sure my colleagues have heard similar requests from juvenile justice officials in their districts. Sending children to jail and throwing away the key while ignoring prevention and rehabilitation programs will not effectively reduce juvenile crime or be cost-effective. A 1996 study by the RAND Corp. found that early intervention and prevention programs are, indeed, cost-effective solutions for reducing the juvenile crime rate. The study indicates that prevention programs which focus on early intervention in the lives of children who are at greatest risk of eventual delinquent behavior are effective in reducing arrest and rearrest rates. We need to send a message to juveniles: If you commit a violent offense you will be punished accordingly. However, at the same time we must continue our attempt to reach kids, to get them involved in their communities, and to prevent them from taking part in dangerous activities in the first place. I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 3 and to strongly support a debate occurring this year on reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974.