Neil Abercrombie

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of some coincidence that today is Humanities on the Hill Day, and we had an opportunity, many of us, to meet with the representatives of the Endowment for the Humanities in our local jurisdictions from all over the country. In that context, I had the privilege of addressing the group who came here this morning for a few minutes, and had a chance to comment to them about a recent event in Hawaii at Schofield Barracks where I had the opportunity to deliver remarks at the dedication of Eternity Hall, Eternity Hall in Quadrangle D at Schofield Barracks. That occasion was on April 2, 1997. Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, marks the 20th anniversary of the death of James Jones, the author of ``From Here to Eternity.'' I would like to take this opportunity, then, today to deliver yet again the comments that were made on that occasion, to indicate to my colleagues that tomorrow the film ``From Here to Eternity'' will be shown at Schofield Barracks, because the young soldiers that are there have taken a renewed interest in their history, have taken a renewed interest in Schofield Barracks and in World War II and, by extension, the author who made it possible for us to understand more about ourselves as a result of the great art that is ``From Here to Eternity.'' Mr. Speaker, ``From Here to Eternity,'' like all great works of art, transcends its form. In this instance, the novel. Like all great works of art, it transforms those who experience it, its readers. It transposes its content, the characters and their actions, into a larger vision of life itself, a dimension of depth beyond the story itself. Schofield Barracks is the stage upon which the story unfolds. But it is not events of which we learn. Rather, we learn the meaning of integrity, honesty, honor, and above all, what it takes to be human. This is what it meant to me. ``From Here to Eternity'' shaped the basic values I hold to this day. So it was with a sense of outrage that I read a sneering, wounding article about James Jones just before leaving for Europe in 1967 on a backpack trek around the world. I had no idea I would literally walk into him in Paris some weeks later. I knew it was him the moment I saw this short, square block of a man plowing down the avenue. In my mind's eye now I see a cigar clamped in his clenched jaw, but perhaps it is only because I like to believe it was there. All I really saw were his eyes. How could such gentle eyes be locked into such a rugged mug of a face? To his friend William Styron, and I quote, ``was there ever such a face, with its Beethovenesque brow and lantern jaw and stepped-upon- looking nose. A forbidding face until one realized that it only seemed to glower, since the eyes really projected a skeptical humor that softened the initial impression of rage.'' On impulse, I spoke to him. ``Don't pay any attention to the critics. You write for us, for me. We're the readers. Pruitt, Warden, Maggio, they're real for us. ``From Here to Eternity'' means everything for us. What you write is important to us. To hell with the critics. Keep writing for us.'' Or some such blither. I felt a total fool. He stared at me, and I bolted away. A few days later I found myself outside his home on the Ile St. Louis behind Notre Dame. The San Francisco Diggers who fed the homeless during those years had published a directory of Americans worldwide who could be counted on to be kind to American travelers in need. I had come upon it in a Left Bank book store, and Jones's name and address were in it. I rang the bell on impulse out of both a desire to apologize and yet tell him again more clearly how much he meant to us as readers. A suspicious housekeeper somehow agreed to tell him that the man who stopped him on the Right Bank the other day wanted to see him. Amazingly she returned animated. By all means Mr. Jones would see me. He was anxious to see me. Please come up. Would it be possible to wait a few minutes while he finished his writing for the day. Please don't leave. I was a bit dazed as I sat on a stool on what appeared to be a tiny bar and library area. Suddenly he burst through a door, barrel-chested, huge smile, moving like a pulling guard on a halfback sweep. ``Am I glad to see you. I told Gloria,'' his wife Gloria, ``I told Gloria all about our meeting. I've been writing on the energy of it for the past two weeks. I never seem to meet readers any more. It's always somebody who wants something from me. How about a drink?'' From that moment, I ceased to be a fan. I became a fierce partisan. I had never met anyone so nakedly honest in his observations and inquiries, so plain-spokenly straight. No rhetorical brilliance, just easy-fit words and thoughts expressed as solid and simple as a beating heart, just like From Here to Eternity. In 1951, the Los Angeles Times said: James Jones has written a tremendously compelling and compassionate story. The scope covers the full range of the human condition, man's fate and man's hope. It is a tribute to human dignity. The book was From Here to Eternity. Its author was 30 years old. In March of 1942, he had written to his brother Jeff from his bunk at Schofield Barracks. Sometimes the air is awfully clear here. You can look off to sea and see the soft, warm, raggedy roof of clouds stretching on and on and on. It almost seems as if you can look right on into eternity. It is 20 years tomorrow since James Jones died, leaving his work to speak for him and to us. Biographer George Garret said, Boy and man, Jones never lost his energetic interest, his continual curiosity, the freshness of his vision. It was these qualities, coupled with the rigor of his integrity, which defined the character of his life's work. Others, of course, recognize these qualities and wish to speak for and about James Jones on this anniversary of his passing. Winston Groom, George Hendrick, Norman Mailer, William Styron, whose Forward to To Reach Eternity: The letters of James Jones, I include here in its totality and from which I will read, Mr. Speaker, excerpts, and Willie Morris, friend and biographer of his last days, all are represented in the remarks which follow. First is a letter to me from Winston Groom: Dear Congressman Abercrombie: Gloria Jones asked me to write to you regarding the dedication of a building in Schofield Barracks in honor of her late husband, James Jones. This is a wonderful and fitting tribute to a fine soldier and a great writer who contributed perhaps more than any other to the public understanding of the military during the World War II era. Long before I wrote Forrest Gump I began a friendship with Jim Jones which was cut far too short by his untimely death. He was always kind and giving to the younger generation of writers and took time to help me with my first novel, Better Times Than These, which was about the Vietnam War. In fact, I dedicated that book to Jim. I congratulate you and all the others who worked to create this very appropriate memorial to a great American patriot and champion of the common soldier. Respectfully yours, Winston Groom. I received a letter from George Hendrick, a professor of English at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Dear Neil: I'm sending along, as promised, the statement for the Schofield Barracks ceremony. I am certainly pleased to know about this important event and to play some small part in it. The university library has acquired the manuscript of From Here To Eternity and The Pistol, and they will be on exhibit at the next meeting of the James Jones Literary Society in Springfield on November 4 of this year. I hope you can attend. Professor Hendrick's comments are as follows: Pvt. James Jones, then a member of the air corps, transferred to the 27th Infantry Regiment at Schofield Barracks in September of 1940. Jones, not yet 19 years old, was already an aspiring novelist, and he was later to have a clear recollection of life in F Company in Quad D, of the lives of officers and enlisted men, and of the landscape around Schofield. In From Here to Eternity he made this peacetime army uniquely his own. When Jones was finishing Eternity in 1949 he wrote a chapter about the events of December 7, 1941, at Pearl Harbor, with emphasis on the strafing of Schofield Barracks that day. He wrote his editor about the chapter. And I quote: Here is the piece de resistance, the tour de force, the final accolade and calumnity, the climax, peak, and focus. Here, in a word, is Pearl Harbor . . . I personally believe it will stack up with Stendhal's Waterloo or Tolstoy's Austerlitz. That is what I was aiming at, and wanted it to do, and I think it does it. I don't think it does, send it back, and I'll rewrite it. Good isn't enough, not for me, any way; good is only middling fair. We must remember people will be reading this book a couple of hundred years after I'm dead . . . The chapter did not need rewriting. In fact, his intent throughout the novel had been to aim high and capture for all time the complex world of Schofield Barracks as it was in 1940 and 1941. From Here To Eternity is now a classic American novel, and Schofield Barracks is preserved in it as if in amber. Norman Mailer, along with William Styron and James Jones, the great trio of writers to come out of World War II said, and I quote: The only one of my contemporaries who I felt had more talent than myself was James Jones, and he has also been the one writer of my time for whom I felt any love. We saw each other only six or eight times over the years, but it always gave me a boost to know that Jim was in town. He carried his charge with him, he had the talent to turn a night of heavy drinking into a great time. I felt then and can still say now that From Here To Eternity has been the best American novel since of the Second World War, and if it is ridden with faults, and ignorances, and a smudge of the sentimental, it has the force that few novels one could name. What was unique about Jones was that he had come out of nowhere, self-taught, a clunk in his lacks, but the only one of us who had the guts of a broken-glass brawl. William Styron faxed to me his introduction to the volume of Jim Jones's letters. He asked that certain passages, those which he thought were most effective for illuminating James Jones, be read at the ceremony. He invited me to feel free to use any part of the essay, not just the circled passages, and I think that I have the essence of it here from William Styron: From Here To Eternity was published at a time when I was in the process of completing my own first novel. I remember reading Eternity when I was living and writing in a country house in Rockland County, not far from New York City, and as has so often been the case with books that have made a large impression on me, I can recall the actual reading, the mood, the excitement, the surroundings. I remember the couch I lay on while reading, the room, the wallpaper, white curtains stirring and flowing in an indolent breeze, and cars that passed on the road outside. I think that perhaps I read portions of the book in other parts of the house, but it is that couch what I chiefly recollect, and myself sprawled on it, holding the hefty volume aloft in front of my eyes as I remained more or less transfixed through most of the waking hours of several days enthralled, to the story's power, its immediate narrative authority, its vigorously peopled barracks and barrooms its gutsy humor and its immense harrowing sadness. The book was about the unknown world of the peace time army. Even if I had not suffered some of the outrages of military life, I am sure I would have recognized the book's stunning authenticity, its burly artistry, its sheer richness as life. A sense of permanence attached itself to the pages. This remarkable quality did not arise from Jones's language, for it was quickly apparent that the author was not a stylist, certainly not the stylist of refinement and nuance that former students of creative writing classes had been led to emulate. The genial rhythms and carefully wrought sentences that English majors had been encouraged to admire were not on display in Eternity, nor was the writing even vaguely experimental; it was so conventional as to be premodern. This was doubtless a blessing, for here was a writer whose urgent, blunt language with its off-key tonalities and hulking emphasis on adverbs wholly matched his subject matter. Jones's wretched outcasts and the narrative voice he had summoned to tell their tale had achieved a near-perfect synthesis. What also made the book a triumph were the characters Jones had fashioned--Prewitt, Warden, Maggio, the officers and their wives, the Honolulu whores, the brig rats, and all the rest. There were none of the wan, tentative effigies that had begun to populate the pages of postwar fiction during its brief span, but human beings of real size and arresting presence, believable and hard to forget. The language may have been coarse- grained but it had Dreiserian force, and the people were as alive as those of Dostoevski. It has been said that writers are fiercely jealous of one another. Kurt Vonnegut has observed that most writers display towards one another the edgy mistrust of bears. This may be true, but I do recall that in those years directly following World War II, there seemed to be a moratorium on envy, and most of the young writers who were heirs to the Lost Generation developed, for a time at least, a camaraderie, or a reasonable compatibility, as if there were glory enough to go all around for all the novelists about to try to fit themselves into the niches alongside those of the earlier masters. When I finished reading From Here to Eternity, I felt no jealousy at all, only a desire to meet this man just four years older than myself, who had inflicted on me such emotional turmoil in the act of telling me authentic truths about an underside of American life I barely knew existed. I wanted to talk to the writer who had dealt so eloquently with those lumpen warriors and who had created scenes that tore at the guts. Jim was serious about fiction in a way that now seems a little old-fashioned and ingenuous, with the novel for him in magisterial reign. He saw it as sacred mission, as icon, as Grail. Like so many American writers of distinction, Jim had not been granted the benison of a formal education, but like these dropouts he had done a vast amount of impassioned and eclectic reading; thus while there were gaps in his literary background that college boys like me had filled, he had absorbed an impressive amount of writing for a man whose schoolhouse had been at home or in a barracks. He had been, and still was, a hungry reader, and it was fascinating in those dawn sessions with him to hear this fellow built like a welterweight boxer, speak in his gravelly drill sergeant's voice about a few of his more recherche loves. Virginia Woolf was one, I recall; Edith Wharton another. I did not agree with Jim much of the time, but I usually found that his tastes and judgments were, on their own terms, gracefully discriminating and astute. Basically it had to do with men at war, for Jim had been to war, he had been wounded on Guadalcanal, had seen men die, had been sickened and traumatized by the experience. Hemmingway had been to war too, and had been wounded, but despite the gloss of misery and disenchantment that overlaid his work, Jim maintained he was at heart a war lover, a macho contriver of romantic effects, and to all but the gullible and wishful, the lie showed glaringly through the fabric of his books and in his life. He therefore had committed the artist's chief sin by betraying the truth. Jim's opinions of Hemingway, justifiable in its harshness or not, was less significant than what it revealed about his own view of existence, which at its most penetrating, as in From Here to Eternity and later in The Pistol and The Thin Red Line, was always seen through the soldier's eye, in a hallucination where the circumstances of military life cause men to behave mostly like beasts and where human dignity, while welcome and often redemptive, is not the general rule. Jones was among the best anatomists of warfare in our time, and in his bleak, extremely professional vision he continued to insist that war was a congenital and chronic illness from which we would never be fully delivered. War rarely ennobled men and usually degraded them. Cowardice and heroism were both celluloid figments, generally interchangeable, and such grandeur as could be salvaged from the mess lay at best in pathos, in the haplessness of men's mental and physical suffering. Living or dying in war had nothing to do with valor, it had to do with luck. Jim had endured very nearly the worst. He had seen death face to face. At least partially as a result of this, he was quite secure in his masculinity and better able than anyone else I have known to detect muscle-bound pretense and empty bravado. It is fortunate that he did not live to witness Rambo or our high-level infatuation with military violence. It would have brought out the assassin in him. The next major work of war was The Thin Red Line, a novel of major dimensions whose rigorous integrity and disciplined art allowed Jim once again to exploit the military world he knew so well. Telling the story of GIs in combat in the Pacific, it is squarely in the gritty, no-holds-barred tradition of American realism, a genre that even in 1962, when the book was published, would have seemed oafishly out of date had it not been for Jim's mastery of the narrative and his grasp of sun-baked milieu of bloody island warfare, which exerted such a compelling hold on the reader that he seemed to breathe new life into the form. Romain Gary had commented about the book: ``It is essentially a love poem about the human predicament and like all great books it leaves one with a feeling of wonder and hope.'' The rhapsodic note is really not all that overblown. Upon rereading, The Thin Red Line stands up remarkably well, one of the best novels written about American fighting men in combat. The Thin Red Line is a brilliant example of what happens when a novelist summons strength from the deepest wellsprings of his inspiration. In this book, along with From Here to Eternity and Whistle, a work of many powerful scenes that suffered from the fact that he was dying as he tried unsuccessfully to finish it, Jim obeyed his better instincts by attending to that forlorn figure whom in all the world he had cared for most and understood better than any other writer alive, the common foot soldier, the grungy enlisted man. His friend at the end, Willie Morris, wrote these words: Dear Congressman Abercrombie, I hope this is what you had in mind. My friend Jim Jones was sent to Schofield Barracks at the age of 18 in 1939 as a private in the old Hawaii Division, which later became the 25th Tropical Lightning Infantry Division. He was a member of Company F. It would be the division of the memorable characters in Jones's classic novel From Here to Eternity: Prewitt and Maggio and Warden and Chief Choate and Stark and Captain Dynamite Holmes and the others, and it would go through Guadalcanal and New Georgia and the liberation of the Philippines all the way to the occupation of mainland Japan, although Jim's own fighting days would end when he was wounded at Guadalcanal. Schofield Barracks resonates with the memory of James Jones and the imperishable characters and events he placed here in his fiction, the sounds of the drills, the echoes of Private Robert E. Lee Prewitt's Taps across the quadrangle, the Japanese planes swooping over the barracks of the fateful morning of December 7, 1941. On the morning of December 7, after the attack started, Jim went to the guard orderly desk outside the colonel's office of the old 27th Regiment quadrangle to carry messages for distraught officers, wearing an issue pistol he was later able to make off with as his fictional Private Mast did in The Pistol. In mid-afternoon of that day his company, along with hundreds of others, pulled out of Schofield for their defensive beach positions. As they passed Pearl Harbor, they could see the rising columns of smoke for miles around. Jones wrote: ``I shall never forget the sight as we passed over the lip of the central plateau and began the long drop down to Pearl City. Down toward the towering smoke columns as far as the eye could see, the long line of Army trucks would serpentine up and down the draws of red dirt through the green of cane and pineapple. Machine guns were mounted on the cab roofs of every truck possible. I remember thinking with the sense of the profoundest awe that none of our lives would ever be the same, that a social, even a cultural watershed had been crossed which we could never go back over, and I wondered how many of us would survive to see the end results. I wondered if I would. I had just turned 20 the month before.'' It is fitting that Eternity Hall be dedicated to James Jones. He was one of the greatest writers of World War II. Many consider him the foremost one. His spirits will dwell forever on these grounds. On my last night in Paris heading for Africa and beyond, I left Jim and Gloria vowing someday somehow would I see From Here to Eternity and Jim honored at Schofield Barracks. James Jones had said to his brother in 1942, I would like to leave books behind me to let people know what I have lived. I'd like to think that people would read them avidly, as I have read so many, and would feel the sadness and frustration and joy and love I tried to put in them, that people would think about that guy James Jones and wish they had known the guy that could write like that. They know you at Schofield Barracks, Jim, today, in Eternity Hall. The ghosts of all those who came before to this quadrangle and the shades of all those who will come, know you and they know you love them. As he neared death, he struggled to finish Whistle, to complete what he had begun with Eternity. The final scene of the novel became the ultimate expression of his passion. Facing the end, he wrote of ``taking into himself all the pain and anguish and sorrow and misery that is the lot of all soldiers, taking it into himself and into the universe as well.'' The universe for James Jones in From Here to Eternity began and ended at Schofield Barracks. The measure of this universe and the final judgment of and about James Jones is to be found in the simple declaration of his dedication: To the United States Army. I have eaten your bread and salt. I have drunk your water and wine. The deaths ye died I have watched beside, and the lives ye led were mine. From Rudyard Kipling. ``I write,'' Jim said, ``to reach eternity.'' You made it, Jim. Today in Eternity Hall, in Quadrangle D, in Schofield Barracks, you made it. Welcome home, Jim.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise as the cosponsor with the gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert] today of the bill which he just enumerated. I think many people in the United States and even around the world according to the administrators at Punch Bowl Cemetery have recognized what has taken place. This is beyond vandalism. That is why this bill is coming forward. I am also grateful to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump] and everyone else who has helped us to recognize what needs to be done here. The present legal situation in the United States does not cover this kind of desecration. This is beyond vandalism. I think there is perhaps a demented mentality at work here. We cannot reward it by reacting in a way that is beyond what the bill calls for. We will look into matters of security. We will look into other legal matters associated with it. But this action must be taken in order to protect monuments, memorials, cemeteries all across the Nation and in fact probably all across the world. I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert]. I thank the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump]. I thank the Democratic Members who are truly making this a bipartisan effort.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

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

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I think that my good friend, the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], has made an excellent summation of the bill to this point. The language of bill, H.R. 449, has undergone a number of refinements, as indicated, since it was first considered in the last Congress. Originally there were a number of very serious concerns with the bill. Tremendous progress on the measure has been made over the past year. Senators Bryan and Reid and the gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Ensign, have worked with the Bureau of Land Management and other interested parties to address a number of issues of concern, and changes to the bill continue to be made up until the very recent time, as indicated again by my good friend. An agreement is near on the total bill, but it has not been completed. The administration's statement of policy on H.R. 449 notes the remaining concerns, but with the understanding that further refinements to the bill are likely in the Senate, neither the administration nor this side of the aisle will oppose passage today of H.R. 449, as amended. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend Mr. Ensign. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we understand Las Vegas and Clark County are under tremendous growth pressure, and we can sympathize with their situation. I think we can all agree that the BLM should work with the local community regarding land sales and exchanges the agency is undertaking in the area. We want to see this done in a fair and reasonable way, one that protects the national interests in these public lands and is mindful of local needs and concerns. With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, we will accept the bill and ask that it move forward today. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I, too, with the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], rise to support H.R. 39, the African Elephant Conservation Reauthorization Act of 1997. I might take a moment, Mr. Speaker, to ask the Chamber to reflect on the fact that not only does Mr. Saxton support this resolution but the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Gingrich, the gentleman from Alaska, Mr. Young, myself and the gentleman from California, Mr. Miller, all support it. I do not know if we are ever going to achieve that position again. We may want to pause for a moment of silence at this point, reverence for the question of bipartisanship. It surely can take place and it does take place over the African elephant. I think we could probably extend that to the donkey and the elephant in the United States, but I am not sure about the former as opposed to the latter. In any event, Mr. Speaker, it is the African Elephant Conservation Reauthorization Act, and it is literally deadly serious business we are about on this floor today. I support the African Elephant Conservation Act and its purpose in perpetuating healthy populations of African elephants. I am concerned that other U.S. funded programs that may impact the African elephant may not be working towards this purpose as expressed by the act. I hope that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the United States Agency for International Development will work cooperatively towards the ends of African elephant conservation. I appreciate the importance of the Speaker, the chairman and the subcommittee chair, the importance which the Speaker and the chairman and the subcommittee chair place on conserving African elephants, and I most certainly commend them for moving expeditiously to reauthorize the African Elephant Conservation Act. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, especially that the young people of this country would pay particular attention, given the fact that we have before us the situation with the panda at the Washington Zoo now undergoing an operation with species throughout the United States and the rest of the world in zoos finding themselves under extreme stress and duress. With populations of animals such as the elephant experiencing similar calamities and difficulties throughout the world, I think that it is incumbent upon us to help other nations and other people find ways to have conservation and preservation efforts be made manifest in more than just the abstract. We do not want to find ourselves reduced to finding reruns of National Geographic specials or Discovery Channel programs constituting or, for that matter, observing animal acts in Las Vegas as the sole preservation effort that is made by this species with regard to the rest of the species on the planet. This particular act, this reauthorization act, is a serious effort made on a bipartisan basis by serious minded Members who want to see to it that we set a standard; with this act we are doing it. If we can take similar measures with other species throughout the world, I look forward to the time when we can say with some confidence that we have made moves and taken steps to see to it that conservation is more than just a word. I commend the gentleman from New Jersey, [Mr. Saxton], for bringing this bill forward and am very grateful for the cooperation that he and the staff of the committee have extended on this bill and for all the Members who have expressed support.

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

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman think he could get unanimous consent on that?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, under the question of wildlife management, perhaps we can get the Committee on the Budget members in and make an amendment to this resolution.

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

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

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think that the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], in his usual manner, has stated the case very well for the International Year of the Reef. I would like to just simply state for the record and for the benefit of the Members who may not be fully aware of the items contained in the resolution, that this sense of the Congress statement is aimed at maintaining the health and stability of coral reef ecosystems. We intend to do that by promoting comprehensive stewardship for coral reef systems, for encouraging research, monitoring, and assessment of and education on coral reef ecosystems, and approving the coordination of the coral reef efforts and activities of Federal agencies, academic institutions, nongovernmental organizations, and industry. Mr. Speaker, this is truly a public-private partnership which will have benefits not only for the reef systems themselves, but for all the people on the planet with respect to continued recognition of our dependency on one another.

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

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to discuss the Partial- Birth Abortion Ban, H.R. 1122 that was introduced yesterday and which we are voting on today. This measure is supposed to be a new improved version of Representative Canady's bill, H.R. 929. However, it is more draconian, offensive and degrading to women. This newly introduced bill, like the one we were supposed to debate, still tears apart the principle that women have reproductive rights which was set in Roe versus Wade (1973) and reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania versus Casey (1992). H.R. 1122 also still uses the same vague, nonmedical terms as Representative Canady's bill. However, H.R. 1122 does include two provisions that were not in Representative Canady's bill, H.R. 929. First of all, a ``partial-birth abortion,'' whatever that means, can not be performed to save the life of the mother even if her very life was endangered by the pregnancy itself. Secondly it allows would-be fathers who had abused or abandoned the mother to sue and collect monetary damages from the physician who performed the improperly defined medical procedure. I find this provision one of the hardest to comprehend--why allow a person that has abused a woman repeatedly to be able to gain monetarily if he gets her pregnant and something goes tragically awry to her fetus after viability? If supporters of H.R. 1122 are concerned about abortions being performed after viability, they would support Representative Hoyer and Greenwood's bill, H.R. 1032, which bans all abortions after viability except in cases when ``the abortion is necessary to preserve the life of the woman or to avert serious adverse health consequences to the woman.'' But, as my colleagues well know, we can not even debate that bill today under this closed rule. This bill takes away a woman's right to choose. H.R. 1122 says to American women: Your health and fertility are not an issue. It demotes women to second class citizenry. I strongly urge my colleagues to re-read the testimony given last year by women like Coreen Costello and Mary-Dorothy Line. These women wanted their babies. However, once they realized that their babies could not survive outside of the womb, they had to make a soul searching decision. That was a very difficult decision made by the women and their husbands, but because they chose to have an intact dilation and evacuation they saved their lives and preserved their ability to have more children. In addition, proponents still do not understand that no matter what has been said about the number of abortions performed using the intact dilation and evacuation procedure before and after viability, the law of the land already grants individual States the right to ban abortion after fetal viability except when necessary to preserve a woman's life or health. 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. I fully support a woman's right to choose as upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 1122.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor from H.R. 600.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, could the Chair advise how many votes are required, how many Members have to be standing? I did not see the required number of votes.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega]. (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for offering me the opportunity to explain this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my joint resolution, House Joint Resolution 32, to consent to certain amendments by the legislature of the State of Hawaii to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920. Over 75 years have elapsed since Congress passed the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920. Under the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, approximately 203,500 acres of public lands was set aside for the rehabilitation of native Hawaiians through a Government-sponsored homesteading project. Two major factors prompted Congress to pass this act. First, native Hawaiians were a dying race. Population data showed that the number of full-blooded Hawaiians in the territory, the then-territory of Hawaii, had decreased from an 1826 estimate of 142,650 to 22,600 in 1919. Second, Congress saw that previous systems of land distribution were ineffective when judged practically by the benefits accruing to native Hawaiians. The Hawaiian Homes Commission Act was originally intended for rural homesteading; that is, for native Hawaiians to leave urban areas and return to lands to become subsistence or commercial farmers and ranchers. Yet the demand of native Hawaiians for residential house lots has far exceeded the demand for agricultural or pastoral lots. The Hawaii Statehood Act of 1959 shifted the responsibility for the administration of the Hawaii Homes Commission Act from the Territory to the State of Hawaii. In accordance with the Statehood Act, title to the available lands was transferred to the new State. The Statehood Act, however, also included certain requirements regarding the State of Hawaii's administration of the Hawaii homes program, and it is these that give rise to joint resolution. Section 4 of the Hawaii Statehood Act provides that, and I quote, ``the consent of the United States,'' unquote, would be required for certain amendments by the State to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act. As part of the administrative responsibility the Department of the Interior undertook in 1983 as, quote, ``lead Federal agency,'' unquote, for purposes of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, the department and the Governor of Hawaii informally agreed in 1987 to a procedure under which the department would become involved in securing consent to State amendments to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act. Congress has previously enacted two statutes consenting to various amendments to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act by the State of Hawaii: Public Laws 99-577 and 100-398. Generally, it has been the position of the Department of the Interior in connection with State amendments to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act to refrain from second-guessing the Hawaii State Legislature and Governor of Hawaii with respect to merits of the amendments. The following two amendments have been determined to require the consent of the United States and again by extension therefore are meeting on the floor today on this resolution: One of them is Act 339 of the Session Laws of Hawaii, 1993. This statute establishes the Hawaiian Hurricane Relief Fund. Section 7 authorized the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands to obtain homeowner's insurance coverage for lessees and to issue revenue bonds. Section 15 of the bill consists of a severability clause which provides that consent requirement, if any, that applies to the Hawaiian Home Lands provisions of the act shall not be deemed to have the validity of the other provisions of the act. The Department of the Interior has taken the position that State enactments which include a severability clause, in the exercise of caution, be submitted to Congress for approval. The second measure, Mr. Speaker, is Act 37 of the Session Laws of 1994. This statute allows homestead lessees to designate as a successor to the lease a grandchild who is at least 25 percent native Hawaiian. Under the current law, as adopted by Hawaii in 1982, a lessee may designate his or her spouse or children as a successor under the lease if they are 25 percent native Hawaiian. The bill would thus allow a similar designation with respect to grandchildren. The Department of the Interior concurs with the State's position that congressional consent is required for this legislation in that it amends the 50- percent blood quantum requirement included in the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act. So in summary, Mr. Speaker, these two measures involve the establishment of Hawaiian Hurricane Act, obviously we are subject to such phenomenon, natural phenomena in the Hawaiian Islands, and it is necessary for us to establish that fund. And by extension, for the reasons mentioned, to request the United States, that is, the House of Representatives and the Senate, to concur. And second, to provide an opportunity because of the passage of time for lessees to designate their grandchildren as well as their spouse or children if they meet the 25 percent native Hawaiian requirement. For these reasons and with respect to that history and legacy of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support these worthwhile measures.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will conclude merely by commenting on my colleague from American Samoa's remarks, that it is indeed the case that the blood quantum requirement has created misunderstanding and difficulty over the years. We need to keep in mind that the act was passed originally in 1920 and that native Hawaiians themselves are coming to grips with this question, and we hope for a resolution that may find its way for presentation to this body in the near future. With that, Mr. Speaker, I request a favorable attention of the Members of the House to this resolution and I hope that it will receive the necessary votes in order to pass. The people of Hawaii will be very grateful for that outcome, and native Hawaiians in particular will be the beneficiaries. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for his remarks and his insight. I am very appreciative. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I note for the Record that Clair Engle was a distinguished member of the House of Representatives from California, and also a U.S. Senator, and that we recognize the practical reasons for this name change. We also note that this action in no way diminishes the respect we have for Clair Engle. The committee report suggests that another facility may in the future be designated in honor of Clair Engle, and I believe that would be an appropriate action to honor his memory. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the resolution sponsored by my colleague, Mr. Hamilton. I commend him for his efforts to draw attention to the significance of the Asia-Pacific region. This resolution highlights the unique and important relationship between the United States and Japan. It also addresses the important role that the people of Okinawa have played in ensuring peace and stability in the region. The significance of the Asia-Pacific region will continue to grow in the 21st century. As we continue to review the defense treaty between the United States and Japan, it is important that the people of Japan know that we are committed to the long-term stability of the region. The United States-Japan relationship remains the cornerstone of our engagement in the region. As a nation, we must continue to strengthen our ties with Japan. In Hawaii, the stability of our economy is tied to the stability of the region and largely to Japan. The people of Hawaii have developed broadbased ties with Japan, to include a strong relationship with the Prefecture of Okinawa. As a result of these ties, the people of Hawaii continue to be concerned about the land issues being addressed in Okinawa with regard to basing of United States military forces. Unfortunately, it took the rape of a 12-year-old school girl in 1995 to turn the attention of the world toward the issues raised in Okinawa with respect to their land use concerns. Today, we are making steady progress on these very sensitive issues which need to be resolved between the Okinawa Prefecture and the Government of Japan. It is no exaggeration to say that Okinawa's people view their homeland as occupied territory. They see the overwhelming presence of United States military forces there as confirmation and they remain the poorest prefecture in Japan. Some 50 years after the end of World War II in the Pacific, Okinawa is the only unresolved residual issue of any significance between Japan and the United States. The people of Okinawa are the least culpable of all those thrust into World War II. For centuries past, they have been known in the region for promoting peace. They are friendly to the interests and people of the United States. Yet they bear the most burden generations later. They have given up a great deal in terms of economic prosperity and deserve to be recognized for their contributions toward ensuring the treaty's implementation and regional peace and security.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, today I am reintroducing legislation which calls for fair representation on all Federal Judicial Circuit Court of Appeals. This legislation is a companion bill to S. 382, the Fairness in Judiciary Appointments Act of 1997. Furthermore, it is identical to H.R. 3045, which was introduced in 1996. Currently, only the State of Hawaii does not have representation on their circuit court of appeals. In fact, it's been over 10 years since Judge Herbert Choy of Honolulu retired from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Some States like Montana have only recently had a resident granted a judgeship. My bill would require that each State have at least one judge appointed to its circuit court of appeals. That way, all States would always have representation on the bench. The bill does not affect the President's historic power to appoint Federal judges. Having each State represented on its respective circuit courts helps ensure that justice is blind and impartial. A report entitled ``The Long Range Plans for Federal Courts,'' completed by the Judicial Conference of the United States in December 1995, noted, ``Federal judicial credibility and accountability are fostered when appellate judges are drawn primarily from the region they will serve.'' This bill would add to the judicial credibility of the courts, because each State would have at least one judge representing and understanding its State law, business, and customs. This legislation is about maintaining the integrity of our third branch of government, fairness, and representation. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill and press for its passage.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute the Hawaii Humane Society [HHS] and the caring individuals who are employed by, or volunteer at this facility. I am pleased to say that today the HHS celebrates 100 years of success in their service to our community. The Hawaii Humane Society is a private, nonprofit charitable organization that promotes the humane treatment of animals to perpetuate the bond between humans and animals. Its animal welfare activities are based on a philosophy of encouraging responsible pet ownership through education, legislation, and prevention. I ask my colleagues to join me in applauding the 28,000 donors and volunteers who give their time for this worthwhile cause. The Hawaii Humane Society's programs are innovative and are models for animal welfare organizations across the country. With their significant contributions in encouraging respect for all living creatures the HHS continues to improve the humane treatment of all animals in our community. I am proud to pay tribute to the Hawaii Humane Society, and I am honored to add my voice to the praises of the many friends who gather to salute this fine organization.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Library of Congress, the Bishop Museum Film Archives, and other institutions, organizations, and individuals who are working to preserve the rich film heritage of this great Nation. The Library of Congress is host to the National Film Preservation Board which advises the Librarian of Congress on selections to the National Film Registry and on national film preservation policy. Through the generosity of the James Madison Council and support from leading directors committed to film preservation, the Library of Congress is sponsoring its second season of the National Film Registry tour. The tour showcases 26 feature films and 10 short subjects from the National Film Registry in their original 35 millimeter or 16 millimeter formats. The American public can enjoy a unique opportunity to sample films from the Library's collections. During its first season, the tour hosted public screenings of a broad variety of classic American films in eight cities across the country. Each year, the board, members of the public, and the Librarian of Congress select up to 25 films for inclusion on the Registry. The films chosen are not necessarily the best American films ever made nor the most famous. Under the terms of the National Film Preservation Act, films selected for the Registry are those that continue to have enduring cultural, historical, or aesthetic significance. Created in 1988, the National Film Preservation Board recognizes the vital contribution of film to the American heritage. The perilous state of America's film heritage was documented by the Library and the National Film Preservation Board in ``Film Preservation 1993: A Study of the Current State of American Film Preservation.'' More than half of all American films made before 1951 are lost forever. Film is a fragile medium, and motion pictures, both old and new, face deterioration problems. Only by storing films in low-temperature and low-humidity environments can the decay process be slowed. The majority of American films do not receive this care and are in critical need of preservation. The National Film Registry Tour pays tribute to American filmmaking and promotes public awareness of the need to protect and preserve America's film heritage. As Dr. Billington notes, ``The moving picture is not so much the art form as the language of our time. Motion pictures provide an unparalleled record of American life and culture. If we can preserve these films, researchers will have the sights and sounds that flesh out the written record of great events and everyday life.'' Of special significance when the tour stopped in Honolulu earlier this month was the screening of Hawaiian regional films including ``This is America'' (1947), which urges support of Hawaii statehood. One highlight of this event was the Library's donation of a new 16 millimeter print of a pre- 1915 film shot in Hawaii (featuring substantial footage shot by the Thomas Edison Company in 1906) to the Bishop Museum Archives. I urge my colleagues to join me in applauding the efforts of the Library of Congress, the Bishop Museum Film Archives, the International Museum of Photography at George Eastman House, the Museum of Modern Art Department of Film and Video, the UCLA Film and Television Archive, and all others involved in this important work.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to speak in support of House Joint Resolution 36 which allows for the early release of international family assistance funding. As my colleagues know, the administration and the Republican leadership made an agreement last September to allow the funding for international family assistance to go forward in July, with the possibility of release of the funds in March if the President certifies to Congress that the delay is having an adverse impact on the family planning program and both Chambers pass legislation to approve the early release. Last week, the President sent his certification to us. According to the President's report, delaying the release of funds undermines U.S. efforts to promote child survival and actually increases the number of abortions worldwide. Evidence from all regions of the world shows that increased contraceptive use, by reducing unintended pregnancies, plays a major role in reducing abortions. Reductions in the rate of abortion as a result of increased contraceptive use have been documented in countries such as Russia, the central Asian republics, Mexico, and Colombia. In Russia alone, an increase of only 5 percent in contraceptive use over 4 years led to a decrease of 30 percent in the annual abortion rate. Why turn back this progress? One would think that abortion opponents would rush to support family planning assistance since it reduces the number of abortions. Unfortunately, this is not the case, considering the permission by the Rules Committee to include consideration of House Resolution 581 which would allow early release of funds with unnecessary and onerous restrictions on the assistance. Contrary to what the supporters of House Resolution 581 claim, current law prohibits the use of any foreign aid funds for abortion or for motivating anyone to seek an abortion. The U.S. agency for international development has followed this policy for years and has strict procedures in place to ensure compliance. Family planning has proven effective in preventing abortions, maternal and child deaths. If we delay support for family planning by even 4 months, denying safe and effective contraception to couples who depend on these programs, we will see a rise in unintended pregnancies and maternal deaths and a tragic recourse to unsafe and unsanitary methods to terminate those pregnancies. This vote is about family planning and releasing delayed fiscal year 1997 funds; no new or additional funds are involved. This vote directly affects the life prospects of countless women and children in developing nations. I strongly urge my colleagues to support House Joint Resolution 36 and vote ``no'' on House Resolution 581.