Neil Abercrombie

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, article I, section 2 of the Constitution requires the House of Representatives to choose a Speaker. It is customary at the commencement of every Congress for members of each party to vote for the candidate decided upon by his or her caucus. Because governance of the House conforms to the democratic principles which undergird our Republic, there is no doubt that the votes of the majority will determine who shall be our Speaker. Today, however, we are choosing a presiding officer in unprecedented circumstances. Never before has there been an election for Speaker in which one of the candidates stands formally accused by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct of violating the rules of the House. It is not my intention today to argue the merits of the charges against the gentleman from Georgia or what if any sanctions should be imposed. I focus instead on the implications of the committee's statement of alleged violation for today's election for Speaker, for the Speakership as an institution, for the House of Representatives, and for our Nation itself. The facts are these: The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct alleges that the gentleman from Georgia violated the rules of the House. As of this date the committee has not completed its consideration of the case, and no resolution has been achieved. When resolution does occur, it may very well involve sanctions which make the gentleman from Georgia ineligible to hold the post of Speaker. Removal of a Speaker under those conditions would be debilitating for the House and the Nation. It would cause chaos within the House and further undermine public confidence in democratic institutions. Even if resolution of the case against the gentleman from Georgia does not result in his ineligibility for the Speakership, his election as Speaker at this time would be inadvisable for two reasons: No. 1, the time, attention, and energy he must devote to his case will diminish the personal resources available for the discharge of his duties as Speaker of the House; and No. 2, the shadow of doubt and suspicion cast by the proceedings against him will undoubtedly fall on every action of the House and bring into question the integrity of this institution. I believe, therefore, that until the case against the gentleman from Georgia is resolved, the House should choose an interim Speaker. I reiterate my acknowledgement that the majority has the right to determine who that individual shall be. However, in order to ensure that the business of the House is conducted in an undistracted manner, free of doubts about the integrity of the institution and its governance, that person should be someone not involved in the ethical issues in which the gentleman from Georgia finds himself enmeshed.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, want to thank the chairman as well and associate myself with all of his remarks, and particularly with those regarding the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds]. I am pleased to note, for whatever pleasant irony there might be, that literally the last provision of this bill is the naming of the sanctuary after the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds]. So I trust that all Members will recognize and abide by the request of the chairman. I have little to add, Mr. Speaker, but rather to supplement just briefly. As indicated, we are asking the House to sign compromise language reauthorizing the National Marine Sanctuaries bill back from the other body in the hope that it will send the bill to the President before adjournment. This bill contains all that the bill we passed previously does. It embodies the House-Senate compromise, as had been indicated, that has bipartisan support. And I want to state that for the record. It most certainly is acceptable to the administration. I want to emphasize that it provides a generous 3-year reauthorization for the program and contains many of the miscellaneous provisions, some of which the chairman pointed out, principally, to enhance the management of individual marine sanctuaries and to give NOAA the authority to raise private funds for sanctuary activities. I think the latter is particularly important. All around, this is the kind of legislation that has been the rule rather than the exception from our Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans for much the same reasons as outlined by the chairman. I commend him for his hard work and the cooperation of him and the staff and the cooperation of many other individuals on the subcommittee and Committee of the Whole for this bill and the many others that we have had come before us. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say to the chairman what a great pleasure it has been, once again, to be able to work with him, and I look forward to it again. That is by way of sympathetic magic. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, before I begin I want to say that I had the opportunity, in fact the privilege, of being in the Committee on Ways and Means the other day when the portrait of Mr. Young was unveiled. I want to take this opportunity to publicly thank him for his untiring efforts on behalf of the causes associated with the Committee on Resources. Regardless, Mr. Speaker, of what one's views might or might not be on any given issue, one can always count on the fact that in dealing with Chairman Young we are dealing with a man of unquestioned integrity, whose commitment to this Nation and to the Committee on Resources has been unfailing. I want to say to him, Mr. Young, that one of the singular privileges of my political life has been to serve with you. Mr. Speaker, I rise, with certain regrets, in support of H.R. 4168, a bill to close the Federal Helium Program. In these days of downsizing, it seems the time has come to terminate programs which appear to have outlived their usefulness, like the Federal Helium Program. Since 1925, when the Defense Department believed that dirigibles, or blimps, would be an integral part of our national defense, the Federal Government has managed a helium program. Today, the Federal Helium Program continues to serve the needs of major Federal users of helium, such as NASA and DOE laboratories. The Federal Government got involved in helium production at a time when there was no private helium production. Today, however, the private sector manufactures 90 percent of the world's helium production. For this reason, groups such as the National Taxpayers Union, the 20/20 TV program, the Interior Department inspector general, and the Heritage Foundation have called for its elimination. H.R. 4168, like its predecessor H.R. 3008 in this Congress and H.R. 3967 in the 103d Congress, enjoys bipartisan support. While I did not support termination of the program, I recognize that, after several years of consideration, Congress is poised to resolve the question of the helium program by terminating it. But, I remain concerned that we have not done enough to aid the 200-plus employees in Amarillo, TX, who will lose their livelihood as a consequence of our decision. During committee consideration of this bill, I offered an amendment to provide employee benefits in addition to those authorized under existing law, so that the 200-plus employees in Amarillo--many of whom have built their careers on this program--would get the same kind of additional education and job placement assistance that we gave defense employees working at bases that were closed. These are people--men and women--who through no fault of their own find themselves working for a Federal program targeted for downsizing. My amendment would have given these people help in addition to what the Secretary is already authorized to provide. The same kind of help that we have provided to many of the defense employees working at military bases scheduled for closure--job placement assistance, extended life and health insurance coverage and the option to take an early retirement without penalty. Sadly, my Republican colleagues could not be persuaded to provide this type of much-needed aid. During committee debate, my colleague, Representative Calvert argued that the Secretary already has the authority to provide these benefits. This is simply incorrect. My amendment would have added authority necessary to enable the Secretary to extend health and life insurance coverage for 3 years beyond an employee's termination; the Secretary does not have the ability to provide this assistance under current law. My amendment would have allowed Federal helium employees access to the enhanced early retirement option; current law does not provide for this protection. My amendment would have given Federal helium employees hiring preference governmentwide--not just in the Amarillo area as is provided for under existing law. So, my amendment failed. And even though I agreed with my colleague, Representative Mac Thornberry, that we don't need to terminate this program, I could see that the bill would pass. So I tried to lessen the blow so that the helium workers might be able to find another Federal job, or if they had served 20 years, take an early out and retire from civil service. But, this was not to be. These activities would have been paid from the existing helium account, and would have cost relatively pennies especially in comparison to the costs of unemployment payments. The CBO said that my amendment would have no budgetary effect. It seemed only fair to offer this assistance to the innocent victims of our downsizing zeal. So that the employees--who had nothing to do with the difficulties facing the program--would not be left stranded by their Government. But, my Republican colleagues could not see their war clear to help their fellow public servants. And so, today, we will pass H.R. 4168 under suspension of the rules so we can praise ourselves for making Government smaller. I just wish we could have done so in a more humane and compassionate manner. I am somewhat consoled by the information that provision for unemployment benefits has been included in the Interior appropriations conference report.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 919, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act amendments. These amendments are especially important for States like Hawaii that will benefit from an increase in the small State minimum for the distribution of funds under the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act. Under the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, services and shelter for victims of domestic violence are provided by the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act to States on a population basis. Small population States receive a minute allocation under this act of $200,000, or 1 percent, whichever is less. S. 919 would increase the minimum allocation to $400,000 so small States can receive a fair share of the new funding available under the Violence Against Women Act. In the State of Hawaii, the percentage of homicides that were committed by family members is now seen as twice the national average, and it is my hope that increased funding and focus for Hawaii's domestic violence shelters and services can turn this frightening statistic around. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to go over a bit of the chronology of events as to how this report now reaches us on the floor because I think it is instructive not only for the membership, but for the community at large, as to how a matter that is seen as having tremendous public impact and community impact is able to be dealt with by the Congress. I think it is a lesson, a civics lesson, if my colleagues will, Mr. Speaker, in how to deal with drastic circumstances that are not otherwise amenable to being resolved in the community minus the legislative support of the Congress. In the course of that I want to compliment the office of the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], the staff in his office, and I most especially want to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee], and his staff, and I want to recognize and commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], and his staff, for recognizing in turn how important this amendment was in seeing it through the entire conference. It is the kind of thing that can easily be lost unless there is an alert staff as well as an alert Chair and ranking member who have the good of the community at heart, and most particularly, those most vulnerable, the innocent among us, our children. I had received a letter, Mr. Speaker, from Governor Benjamin Cayetano, the Governor of our State of Hawaii, asking for support of the amendment and indicating that he was aware of how important the change from $200,000 to $400,000 would be. I got that in July. I am citing the specific times, Mr. Speaker, because I want to show how it is possible for the Congress to act with a concerted effort and respond rapidly, and this is an excellent example of it. I drafted a letter, a ``Dear Colleague'' letter, to Members, and I am very pleased that the gentlewoman from Hawaii, Mrs. Mink, my colleague, and the gentleman from Delaware, Mr. Castle, were the original signers of the letter, and we consulted with the staff of Mr. Goodling's committee, and we sent a ``Dear Colleague'' letter out to Members whose districts and whose States were affected. We invited them to sign a letter to Chairman Goodling of the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities in support of increasing the minimum, and I would like to quote, if I might, Mr. Speaker, briefly from the letter to Mr. Goodling because I think it provides, again, an example and a basis for understanding how legislation can be brought promptly to the floor in a way that effectively serves the ends sought. In addressing the chairman we wrote requesting his support for increasing the small State minimum in the distribution of funds. Small States were guaranteed a minimum, as I indicated, of $200,000. Congress recently increased the appropriation from $32 million in fiscal year 1995 to $47 million in 1996. Unfortunately, the small State minimum did not receive a comparable increase; thus States which we represented, those of us who signed the letter to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], Alaska, Delaware, Washington, DC, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia and Wyoming did not benefit from the funding increase. Small States, of course, have the same pressing needs as large States to provide adequate services for women who have been the victims of domestic violence. Consequently we believed that it was imperative that the small State minimum be increased. The Senate had already increased the small State minimum to $400,000 in the Child Abuse and Prevention Treatment Act and was expected to include it. Mr. Speaker, the Senate, as I said, expected to include this provision in the Labor, HHS and Education appropriations bill but obviously required support of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] and the conferees in the conference. The result, Mr. Speaker, is before us today. It has been accomplished. In other words, between July and September of this year on a bipartisan basis, we were able to deal with this crisis. Small States were recognized, and more importantly, the children and those others who come under the aegis of this act were recognized as being in need. So I would like to close with a profound sense of gratitude to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] and the committee and indicate that I hope that this will, if it has to be voted on, will be a unanimous vote of the Congress and offer in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, again a reference to the fact that it is possible for men and women of good will and acting in faith with the Constitution and our duties here in the House to act promptly on behalf of the children of this country.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that there are any further statements from this side, so I will reserve the balance of my time at this time in case a Member comes.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1179, as introduced by the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Clement], authorizes appropriations for the preservation and restoration of historic buildings at historically black colleges and universities [HBCU's]. This is a worthy endeavor. Many of us supported similar legislation in the 103d Congress. Many of the historic structures located on historically black colleges are threatened, and a significant effort is needed to preserve and protect them. The Department of the Interior, in cooperation with the United Negro College Fund has launched a project to preserve these structures. H.R. 1179 provides the necessary legislative authorization to carry out these important projects. The Committee on Resources has held hearings in each of the last two Congresses on this legislative proposal. Each time we have heard moving testimony on the historic importance of many of these structures in furthering educational opportunities. Several of these historic buildings were constructed by the students themselves. H.R. 1179 differs slightly from what we passed in the 103d Congress with several changes made to the bill during committee consideration. However, as indicated by the gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle], Members on both sides have worked to maintain broad bipartisan support for the legislation, and I think and I trust that all parties can be satisfied with the final product, and I urge approval of the bill at this time. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Clement].

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I did say that the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Clement] could have such time as he wanted to consume; if he wants to pursue that particular line, he is allowed to do that.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, although I imagine, because of today's schedule, some who might have wanted to speak were not able to be here, and I presume their statements will be made at another point in the Record. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time on this bill.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, before I begin my remarks on the particular section of the bill that applies to Hawaii, I, too, would like to add my voice to the accolades that have been extended to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds]. Mr. Speaker, I first had the opportunity to listen, not to hear but to listen to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds], in 1986 when I had the good fortune to be elected in a special election to take up the remaining time of a Member of this body that had resigned to run for another office. In the brief time that I was here in 1986, I had the opportunity to participate in activities of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, and had the opportunity when I was elected in 1990 to again join that committee. I say ``opportunity,'' because it was there that I, I am sure, had an experience that has been shared with many, many other Members of the House of Representatives, the chance to listen to and to observe and to absorb the perspective and analysis of ocean policy that was the forte of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds]. There are few people in this body, perhaps in the history of this body, better able to articulate their thoughts, particularly with respect to ocean policy, environmental policy. I think Mr. Studds is universally respected for his intellect and for the depth of his perspective on these issues. As the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr] and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] have indicated, I doubt whether there is anyone in this body, including the renowned gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], who has a quicker wit, a brighter intelligence, a sense of himself entirely self- contained, as opposed to perhaps some others in this body, someone who understands his role and has illuminated many, many corners which would otherwise remain abstract and obscure to the rest of us. It is always a lesson in oratory, I think, as well as perspective, to be able to listen to Mr. Studds outline for those of us who may not be entirely familiar with the legislation at hand, particularly in regard to the ocean, ocean policy, and fisheries, to be able to listen to him enumerate and elucidate for us on those areas, and come to not only a good understanding but solid commitment. I think that is why, as has been indicated, bipartisan support for so much in the way of ocean policy has been forthcoming, is because Gerry Studds has been able to articulate for all Members of the body not entirely familiar with the legislation exactly what it was about, exactly what the implications were, exactly what was in the national interest, and therefore was able to gain the approbation and good will of virtually every Member of the body for legislation that would otherwise be very difficult to comprehend. I really wish him the very best in whatever it is that he will be doing, but I can say with assurance, Mr. Speaker, that this body will be the poorer for him taking leave of it. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, then, to voice my support for H.R. 3487, the aforementioned National Marine Sanctuaries Preservation Act. I, too, wish to thank the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] and others on the committee, both Republican and Democrat, who have worked so hard in this reauthorization. This bipartisan piece of legislation was introduced by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr]. I think the description they gave of the process by which it has arrived here today is an exact one. It was a pleasure to work with both of them. Hawaii is one of the 14 major areas where National Marine Sanctuaries, of which the prime objective is to protect our marine resources, have been designated and are in various stage of implementation. In fact, the final environmental impact statement/ management plan on the designation of the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale Sanctuary is set to be released later this month. In particular, H.R. 3487, thanks to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr], contains two provisions specific to the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary Act regarding the designation of the waters around the Island of Kaho'olawe for inclusion in the sanctuary and the prohibition of the establishment of user fees in the sanctuary. May I add parenthetically, Mr. Speaker, that this is a good example of the hard work and detailed work that had to go into this bill. I am sure the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr] would agree that virtually every one of the sanctuaries has unique capabilities and unique qualities that require particular individual attention, and the National Marine Sanctuaries Preservation Act is a prime example of how you have to suit legislation to the particular, and that you cannot put together a bill where one size will literally fit all. It cannot happen in this particular kind of legislation. The only way it can succeed is if you have Members who are willing to do their homework and be able to understand the particular necessities associated with each of the sanctuaries. Mr. Speaker, these provisions, the ones I mentioned with regard to Kaho'olawe, were brought to the attention of the Hawaii delegation by State officials as a result of meetings with the Sanctuary Advisory Council. This council was established to empower local communities to provide advice and recommendations to the sanctuary manager on the development and continued management of the site. Currently, the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale Sanctuary Act requires the Secretary of Commerce to make an annual finding concerning the suitability for the inclusion of the sanctuary of waters within 3 nautical miles of Kaho'olawe Island. However, the language included in H.R. 3487 provides that the Kaho'olawe Island Reserve Commission may request the Secretary of Commerce to include the waters surrounding Kaho'olawe into the sanctuary. If a determination of inclusion is made, the Secretary will provide notice to the Governor of Hawaii and prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement and management plan and any necessary implementing regulations in accordance with the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, the Sanctuary, and the National Environmental Policy Act. The Kaho'olawe provision puts the management of Kaho'olawe and the waters surrounding the island into the hands of the Kaho'olawe Island Reserve Commission. Furthermore, it protects the rights of the State of Hawaii and the Secretary to terminate inclusion of Kaho'olawe Island waters if the supplemental management plan, any implementing regulation or any term of the plan or regulation is unacceptable. In 1992, the initial boundaries of the Hawaiian Islands Sanctuary Act were designated. However, the waters around the island of Kaho'olawe, which were previously used by the Department of Defense as a weapons range, was purposely excluded. In 1993, the Governor of Hawaii signed an act which established and created the aforementioned Kaho'olawe Island Reserve Commission to oversee the departments and agencies of the State with respect to the management of the island reserve. It was further stipulated that the reserve shall be used solely and exclusively and reserved in perpetuity for the preservation and practice of all rights customarily and traditionally exercised by native Hawaiians for cultural, spiritual, and subsistence purposes; for the preservation and protection of the reserve's archaeological, historical, and environmental resources, rehabilitation, revegetation, habitat restoration, and preservation; and for education. In 1994, a memorandum of understanding between the U.S. Department of the Navy and the State of Hawaii conveyed the island of Kaho'olawe back to the State. The Department of the Navy in conjunction with the Kaho'olawe Island Reserve Commission has issued an informational draft request for proposals for the clean-up of Kaho'olawe. Issuance of the final RFP will occur after completion of the use plan for the island and several Navy-State agreements required by the Kaho'olawe memorandum of understanding. The second provision regards the prohibition of user fees in the sanctuary. This language was included as a result of concerns expressed by the State regarding the potential impacts of the sanctuary on local communities; this in the context that I previously outlined with respect to native Hawaiian customs, et cetera. Specifically, the language states that the Secretary of Commerce shall not institute any user fee under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act for any activity within the Hawaii Islands National Marine Sanctuary or any use of the Sanctuary or its resources, again in the context previously enumerated. Mr. Speaker, these two provisions will provide for the better management of the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale Marine Sanctuary. I most urgently ask all my colleagues to support H.R. 3487. Mr. Speaker, may I again thank the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr] for their hard work on this bill.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle] indicated, the administration is in favor of this bill before us on the basis of the technical corrections that are contained in it. I have a copy of the statement of the administration policy on that. Mr. Speaker, as previously indicated, these are technical amendments to correct inadvertent errors in the royalty fairness bill that was enacted prior to the August recess. The bill was signed by President Clinton at a ceremony in Wyoming. I want to make clear for other Members who may not be entirely familiar with the legislation that the technical amendments clarify the requirements and the provisions for Government paying interest on overpayments as well as addressing some typographical errors. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to introduce this measure in support of economic growth and jobs for Americans. The American Chamber of Commerce in Korea reports that the average visitor from South Korea to the United States spends over $3,400. South Korean visitors to the United States spent nearly $2 billion in 1995. This means economic growth and jobs for Americans particularly those in States most visited by South Koreans: California, New York, Hawaii, Guam, Nevada, Arizona, Illinois, and Washington, DC. All indications show that this boom is just the beginning. Today, South Korea has the 11th largest economy in the world and is the 6th largest United States trading partner. We need to take positive advantage of this new phase of South Korean prosperity. Unfortunately, the United States continues to restrict Korean travelers by not allowing South Korea to participate in the Visa Waiver Pilot Program [VWPP]. Although many more Koreans would like to visit the United States, they find the visa process to cumbersome. Today, the United States lags behind Canada, Australia, and other countries in cornering the Korean tourist market. The bill I offer with Mr. Jay Kim would establish a visa waiver pilot program for nationals of Korea who are traveling in tour groups to the United States. Under this bill, Korean visitors are allowed for a period of not more than 15 days. The bill would also establish special bond and notification requirements for tour operators. These include the posting of a $200,000 bond and approval by the Secretary for a tour operator's application to escort tour groups to the United States. As we work to strengthen our economy in this country, I am confident that increased revenues generated from Korean visitors will be most welcomed.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I thank the gentleman from California.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] for yielding and for engaging in this colloquy which is very important to the people of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, the question I have for this colloquy is, does H.R. 3103 adversely affect the integrity and purpose of the existing Hawaii Prepaid Health Care Act of 1974?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 3198, a bill that would reauthorize the 1992 Geologic Mapping Act through fiscal year 2000, and amend the act to designate that 20 percent of the total amount appropriated be allocated to the State component of the program. I would note that both the Clinton administration and the State Geologists support this bill. Congress enacted the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992--Public Law 102-285 and 43 U.S.C. sections 31a-h--in order to expedite the production of a geologic map data base for the Nation, which can be applied to land-use management, assessment, and utilization, conservation of natural resources, groundwater management, and environmental protection. The act designated the U.S. Geological Survey as the Federal agency responsible for planning, coordinating, and managing the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program. This program is carried out by a consortium of geologic mapping partners including State geological Surveys, universities, other Federal agencies, and the USGS. Geologic maps are the primary data base for nearly all applied and basic earth science investigations. Federal agencies, State and local governments, private industry, and the general public depend on the information provided by geologic maps. The current geologic map data base is inadequate to meet these needs and development of a comprehensive nationwide program of geologic mapping is required at a pace that responds to increasing demand for mapping in high-priority areas. The States and the USGS each conduct a yearly, needs-based survey to determine program priorities. Improved geologic map information has been shown, using benefit-cost analyses, to be of significant value in many decisionmaking processes, including: Exploring for and developing mineral, energy, and water resources; Screening and characterizing sites for toxic and nuclear waste disposal; Land use evaluation and planning for environmental protection; Earthquake hazards reduction; Predicting volcanic hazards; Designing and constructing infrastructure requirements such as utility lifelines, transportation corridors, and surface-water impoundments; Reducing losses from landslides and other ground failures; Mitigating effects of coastal and stream erosion; and Siting of critical facilities. I urge my colleagues to support enactment of this bill.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] for taking up this bill. I want to emphasize in the time given to me, this cannot be done without the Federal Government. This is not the responsibility of a State. The monk seal is the only species of its kind in U.S. waters, and it is up to us as stewards in this environment, in this ocean environment to take up this cause. So it is very, very important. The same with the green sea turtle. This also affects not only Hawaii, but areas around Florida as well as other sites throughout the world. My principal emphasis here is that this extinction is a very real possibility, and yet the National Marine Fisheries Service has done extraordinarily great service for this Nation in terms of the stewardship to which I referred. It is bringing back the species. It is now into the thousands, coming back up as far as the monk seal is concerned. With the investigations of biology, ecology, and life history of these species being examined by the National Marine Fisheries, with the chairman's good efforts on our behalf, I think that we will find that the whole Nation will be the beneficiary and we will have done by these species what is required of us as a human species looking out in our capacity and responsibility for species throughout the world.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the manager's amendment to H.R. 1975, the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Fairness and Simplification Act. May I say in that regard that I want to thank my colleague and friend, the gentleman from California, Chairman Ken Calvert, and the staff on his side for their fairness in helping to make this as simple a process as possible. As he has indicated in his remarks, this is an issue with which not everyone may be familiar but which is fundamental to the sound fiscal policy with respect to Federal oil and gas royalty fees. I also note the presence on the floor of the chairman of our Committee on Resources, Mr. Young, and I am very pleased to see him here and I appreciate his kindness and fairness. I can no doubt add a few other adjectives, depending on how much I sense from him that he appreciates the same in me. I can see from his body language that he understand the full import of my remarks. Mr. Speaker, the manager's amendment will substitute the language written by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for the language reported by the House Committee on Resources. The primary difference between the House and Senate language is that the Senate language authorizes but does not mandate the Secretary of the Interior to delegate certain royalty management functions to willing and qualified States. This issue has been gone over in detail by the gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert], so I will not repeat it. This would resolve my major problem with the bill and removes the President's veto threat on the bill. I would note that during committee consideration of H.R. 1975 I offered an amendment which the majority did not accept at that time that would have made this very change. I am pleased to see that they now concur with me and that there is no reason to require the Secretary of the Interior to transfer the royalty functions to the States. But while there are many positive features in the manager's amendment, it still contains, in my estimation, some flaws. For example, I continue to believe that is no reason to require the Federal Government to pay interest on oil companies' overpayments to the Federal Treasury, especially when these mistakes occur as a result of sloppy accounting or possible sloppy accounting by oil and gas companies. This new benefit for oil and gas corporations will create, again in my estimation, a new Federal debt and possibly cost taxpayers an estimated $44 million between 1997 and 2002 and possibly an additional $10 million in direct spending each year thereafter. However, in the interest of comity, I am willing to take the majority at its word, particularly that of the gentleman from California, Chairman Calvert, and the gentleman from Alaska, Chairman Young, and accept the administration's assurance that this provision will not be allowed to be abused by the oil and gas lessees. Knowing the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] as I do, I doubt that anybody can get away with anything. Improvement is always in order, and the majority has worked diligently with the Clinton administration to effect this compromise and, I would like to reiterate, has worked diligently with the minority on the committee as well. If we are to govern, then we must be willing to accept compromises. I do so with this bill, and in this context and in this spirit of comity, we do not object to the passage of H.R. 1975, as amended by the bill's manager, and recommend its acceptance. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I include for the Record a letter from the White House addressed to me and signed by the Chief of Staff, Mr. Leon Panetta, in support of the bill: The White House, Washington, DC, May 30, 1996. Hon. Neil Abercrombie, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Abercrombie: I am writing to inform you of the Administration's position regarding the pending Oil and Gas Royalty Simplification and Fairness legislation (S. 1014). Let me assure you that the Administration remains committed to ensuring the efficient management of Federal lands and finding new ways for the States to work cooperatively and creatively with the Federal Government. The President shares your hope that an agreement can be reached on the State delegation issue. In an effort to resolve this issue, Administration representatives, working with the staff of the Senate Energy Committee, were successful in reaching an agreement on language that would expand the list of delegable royalty management authorities, without reducing the Secretary of the Interior's responsibility with respect to the management of Federal lands. That language was included in S. 1014, which was reported out of the Senate Energy Committee on May 1st. The Administration supports S. 1014 as reported out of committee, but will seek a minor technical amendment. The Administration believes this bill's State delegation language is acceptable, unlike the language included in H.R. 1975, the House Resources Committee bill on Royalty Simplification. The Administration will continue to work with Congress as the legislative process moves forward, and stands ready to work in support of the language included in the Senate Energy Committee bill. I appreciate your interest and support in this important legislation. Sincerely, Leon E. Panetta, Chief of Staff. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen]. (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes and 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney].

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley], and in the process thank him for his assistance with this bill. Without his cooperation, insight and input, I do not think we would have reached such as successful conclusion. (Mr. DOOLEY of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson]. (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, could you kindly inform me of the time remaining?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, continuing under my reservation of objection, I would like to say that I am also pleased to rise in strong support of H.R. 3249, the Mining and Mineral Resources Institutes Act. This legislation, as indicated, was drafted and introduced in the true spirit of bipartisanship by the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Wicker] and myself. We have had the extensive cooperation and support again of the gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert], our able chair, and of the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], for which I am very appreciative. H.R. 3249 would extend authorization for the Mining Institute to promote environmentally responsible mining technology development for the recovery of the minerals from our Nation's seabed. This type of technology, Mr. Speaker, is critical to the future of mining in the United States, and I am very pleased that this is recognized, again on a bipartisan basis, and am very thankful for the individual encouragement from the chairman of the full committee and the gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert]. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in strong support of H.R. 3249, the Mining and Mineral Resources Institutes Act. This is legislation that was drafted and introduced in the true spirit of bipartisanship by the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Wicker] and myself. H.R. 3249 would extend authorization for a mining institute to promote environmentally responsible technology development for the recovery of minerals from the Nation's seabed. This type of technology is critical to the future of mining in the United States. H.R. 3249 is not a new Government program. Previously, the marine mining program was carried out under the Mineral Institutes Program within the Bureau of Mines. Last year the decision was made to terminate the Bureau of Mines. Yet, worthwhile functions of this agency still deserve and need support. One such example is in the Marine Mineral Technology Center of the Mineral Institutes Program. The executive branch, recognizing the value of this program, transferred this program to the Minerals Management Service. The Marine Mining Technology Center program is a unique cooperative program involving leading universities with expertise in applied problems in marine resources and the marine environment. The program is singular because for a relatively small sum of Federal seed money to State institutions and small research organizations, we have seen a prodigious amount of practical research and development accomplished. Additionally, as a byproduct, a number of high-quality graduate students have gained practical hands-on experience. The center's program of research, technology development, and education is multidisciplinary and international in scope. Currently, the marine mining program is carried out by the Continental Shelf Division, located at the University of Mississippi, and the Oceans Basins Division at the University of Hawaii. The University of Hawaii program has been assisted by matching funds from the State of Hawaii because of its critical input to State cooperative development programs, as well as university research and education. Practical aspects of the program have included major inputs to an environmental impact statement on cobalt crusts in the exclusive economic zone [EEZ] of the Hawaiian and Johnston Islands, State programs on sand for the preservation of Hawaii's beaches and coastal environment, and the cleanup of military ordinance from the offshore areas of Kaho'olawe Island, recently returned to the native Hawaiian people by the Navy. This program merits continued Federal support. I am hopeful that we will see this legislation proceed expeditiously through the Senate so that President Clinton can sign it into law this year. In that light, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I would like to have time to speak under the reservation. Mr. Speaker, under my reservation, I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Wicker].