Neil Abercrombie

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. And this budget does that over the next 5 years, or whatever the timeframe is, approximately 5 years, and I asked you then, I said, well, do you think then this is an argument against this particular budget? And you said, well, no, because you thought maybe you could even be more harsh. Certainly you did not mean that there should be greater cuts now and more borrowing.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Let us talk about it just a minute. Would you indulge me and stay a moment longer because you know I want to catch you up on the importance of what you are saying, what I think I understand you to be saying. You think it is immoral to borrow money that you have no plan to pay back for because our kids have to pay for it; right?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Let us talk about that.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I credit you for that.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Well, are you making an argument to vote against this budget then, because it does not balance, as you indicated, and it does borrow immorally against a future, the immediate future.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. No; not at all.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I am sure the gentleman would agree also that an investment in our children, an investment in the educational infrastructure and foundation, both literal and figurative, of our children is equally a national priority and a defense of the Nation. So what we need is a discussion as to what constitutes an actual strategic policy of the United States with respect to procurement of military technology and what constitutes an investment in our people as well. That deserves a discussion. I am not saying necessarily a lengthy discussion, but it certainly deserves a discussion in depth, and perhaps the gentleman could indicate whether my understanding is correct, that the intention of the majority, the intention of the majority leader and the Committee on Rules is to dispatch this budget within a day or so of our discussion today.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I agree.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I not only agree, but I think we should have an extensive discussion as to what exactly constitutes welfare, what exactly constitutes discretionary spending, what programs should we have and not have. For example, my understanding is that the Speaker, for some reason unknown to me, is proposing a defense act or bill which revolves around national missile defense. Now, I would say, and I would hope you would agree, that the majority has not only very able, but extremely well- informed, experienced legislators on the Committee on National Security, of whom I can name two or three right now: Mr. Weldon, Mr. Hunter, and Mr. Cunningham. I can th1nk of just three offhand. And the minority has people like Mr. Spratt. Mr. Dellums, others I could name, Mr. Peterson of Florida, who are equally capable, and equally capable, by the way, of defending and rebutting on the question of national missile defense. But the Speaker has said he wants to bring forward a missile bill. Now, I do not think the Speaker knows any more about missiles than he knows about Hawaiian malasadas, and I do not think he knows much about malasadas, and I will spell that after this is over, but take it from me, it is a Portuguese donut, and I do not think he knows much about it. I think Leonard's knows all about it out in Honolulu. But that budget, if we are going to talk about spending and welfare, has to be looked at very hard. The Congressional Budget Office, as I understand it, came up with figures just to acquire this defense system, missile system, national missile defense, of between $30 and $60 billion. Now, that is a serious question; and we cannot hide behind the idea that somehow, if you are for it, you are for defense, if you are against it, you are against defense, when you have to put it in terms of what constitutes proper spending under the admonitions that you just enunciated.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. You and I may not be here after today. Although I must say that this does show, I think, that this is not so much a question of majority versus minority. It is a question of whether you want to be honest about it. My defense, if you will, of the President's approach under this is that the President has accepted, and I will say in good faith, the congressional budget numbers as offered by the majority. His difference comes in this, in how he prioritizes the spending changes. We can argue that and I think we should argue it a lot more. My fear is, and what I said earlier today was, because it is so difficult to understand terms like out years and whether a surplus is really a surplus and those kinds of things, because it is so difficult, the majority, I am given to understand, intends to put forward the budget and the amount of discussion that is going to take place about the budget, such as you and I are having right now, will be minimized. In fact, it will be virtually nonexistent. From what I can gather, both sides are apparently quite content to do that. Although I would welcome the opportunity, if Mr. Solomon and the Committee on Rules would agree, to open up the budget for 3 or 4 or 5 days' review.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner] for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here today and particularly to follow the chair of our subcommittee, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley], because I would like to echo his comments on the cooperation between the appropriations committee and the authorizing committee. In this particular instance, we are talking about quality of life, and I would like to follow then on the remarks of the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner] as well. Unfortunately, the Department of Defense has come to rely upon us in Congress when it comes to budgetary matters with respect to quality of life. What happens is, on the procurement side, in the more exotic weapons systems, particularly those that cost a great deal of money, they push that part of the envelope right up to the edge, and then they count on Members of Congress to come through on questions of quality of life, whether it is barracks or family housing or what have you, child development centers, et cetera. And we have done that. I want to commend the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] for his bipartisan approach on it, the chair of the subcommittee; and my good friend from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner] for seeing to it that these quality of life issues have not been abandoned. In particular, I can say in the area of the Pacific, we have dealt with Schofield Barracks and the renewal of barracks there, and we are very appreciative, and this year at Kaneohe for the Marine Barracks. General Krulak, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, called very, very happy to see that we were going to start the phasing in of the new barracks proposals at Kaneohe in the State of Hawaii. I will say that this has a further good effect. What this does is stop the competition for nonexistent rental housing between military families and civilian families. The result, the 6 years that I have been in office and the plan that I started out with and presented on a bipartisan basis, was that this would reduce rents, reduce the cost of living in Hawaii for civilian families and improve the quality of life for military families, I think a good result from that, and I am very grateful for it. I have two other points that I would like to make very briefly. One, as a way of improving this, I hope and I think the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] has indicated that he has an interest in this, and other Republican members on our authorizing committee have indicated an interest in this, is that we start thinking about capital budgeting and start differentiating operating costs from capital costs, particularly using as a demonstration model perhaps quality of life issues in the military. We have started that. The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] was instrumental in helping us put together legislation for public-private partnerships to see to it that we can get into capital expenditures. If we can differentiate capital expenditures from operating expenditures, I think we can make vast improvements in the quality of life area and demonstrate a way of moving toward more sensible spending patterns that will result not only in helping to balance the budget but in moving forward in a sensible way with our military budgeting. So I am appreciative to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley], the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner], to the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich], and others who have helped support this issue. Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me say that when I was first elected in a special election in 1986, there was someone here who took me under his wing, that acted as a mentor to me, someone whom I believe to be an example of the true gentleman that exists in the House of Representatives, someone who will be more than missed, someone for whom I have the greatest possible respect, someone that we know and military families throughout the country will appreciate for decades to come because of his work at Fort DeRussy and Hale Koa to see that the recreation needs of our military are taken care of. All of us are going to miss with all of our hearts Representative Sonny Montgomery from Mississippi.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, as has been stated, Admiral Boorda served this Nation with honor and distinction and carried out his duties in that manner, and we are required on this sad day to carry out ours.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 3269, the impact aid technical amendments bill. Hawaii is, in many cases, an exception to the rule in the United States. With regard to the impact aid program, Hawaii is the only State in the Union with one school district. However, the U.S. Department of Education, routinely treats the seven administrative agencies within Hawaii's single school district as separate when calculating Federal formula grants. This is true of title I and was true of the impact aid formula prior to the last reauthorization. When the impact aid reauthorization was considered in the 103d Congress, it was not expressly stated that Hawaii's one school district should be regarded as seven for administrative purposes. H.R. 3269 clarifies such congressional intent with the technical amendments and effectively increases Federal impact aid contributions to Hawaii by approximately a half. H.R. 3269 would finally allow Hawaii a fair allocation under the impact aid program. Throughout my congressional career, I have strongly supported impact aid and the principle that States should be compensated for the use of State property for Federal activities. Without impact aid, the burden of educating federally supported families would become an unfunded mandate for local education agencies. As a member of the Impact Aid Coalition Steering Committee, I will continue to advocate for the military families and all children who benefit from the impact aid program.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas has made a good point concerning whether or not in terminating the program there will be genuine competition take place or whether there will be privatization under circumstances, to wit, a formula that inhibits competition. At the same time, there are questions with respect to conservation and the interests of the Nation with respect to the helium reserve. My own inclination is to be sympathetic to the gentleman from Texas' commentary. However, I realize that the gentleman, who has been in the forefront of bringing this legislation to the floor, may have another view or perhaps an additional observation to make with respect to the conservation aspect.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes, to say that the discussion in committee, at least with respect to the gentleman from Florida's last comments, was not about whether this was a jobs program. The question is whether the jobs that were being done could be dealt with in a manner consonant with the closure of this program that would do justice to our sense of compassion and understanding of the impact that it would have on those people who are now working.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman, I know.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, with the Chair's permission, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise with regrets, acknowledging H.R. 3008, a bill to close the Federal helium program, will pass today. 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. I want to note that I say appear, Mr. Speaker. 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, who are required to purchase helium from the Bureau of Mines. 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. For this reason groups such as the National Taxpayers Union, the ``20/20'' TV program, the Interior Department inspector general, and the Heritage Foundation, an unlikely conglomeration, have called for its elimination. H.R. 3008, like its predecessor, H.R. 3967 in the 103d Congress, enjoys bipartisan support. While I did not support termination of the program, I recognize 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 consequence of our decision. The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to sell off all the equipment, real property, refining facilities, and gradually sell off most of the crude helium currently stored in Amarillo, TX. Funds from the sale will be deposited in a helium fund established under the 1960 act, and will be available for various termination activities, including some employee benefits already authorized under law. Eventually the fund will be applied against the debt to reduce the deficit. This is, in any event, the hope. During the 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, Mr. Speaker, men and women, who through no fault of their own find themselves working for a Federal program targeted for downsizing and in fact elimination. My amendment would have given these people help in addition to what the Secretary has already authorized to provide, the same kind of help that we have provided, as I indicated, 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 on the committee could not be persuaded to provide this type of much-needed aid. During committee debate, my friend and colleague from California [Mr. Calvert] argued that the Secretary already has the authority to provide these benefits. This is simply incorrect, Mr. Speaker. 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, and current law does not provide for this protection. My amendment would have given Federal helium employees hiring preference Government-wide, not just in the Amarillo area as is provided under existing law. So, Mr. Speaker, my amendment failed. Even though I agreed with my good friend and colleague from Texas [Mr. Thornberry] that we did not need to terminate this program, I, and I believe he, could see that this 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 served 20 years, they could take an early out and retire from civil service. As of now, this is not to be, Mr. Speaker. 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 benefits. The Congressional Budget Office said that my amendment would have had 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 way clear to help their fellow public servants in this instance, and so today I expect we will pass H.R. 3008 under suspension of the rules so we can praise ourselves for making Government smaller. We could have done so, Mr. Speaker, in a much more humane and compassionate manner. I will ask the other body to consider my amendment before we conclude the legislative process. Loyal workers in the helium program deserve no less. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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, reclaiming my time, I do not think that we would resolve that particular dispute today. Suffice to say that Mr. Thornberry has raised the issue as to whether the formula is so exact in this bill that it needs no further consideration, and I think his contention is that it should receive at least another good look before it passes into a final form to be presented to the President for signature. I think that, at a minimum, we deserve at least another look and I think that that opportunity exists in the other body.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, with respect to that, I want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert] for his usual courtesy and kind attention toward our efforts in the minority, and I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] for his remarks today. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, if the gentleman was a bit more familiar with the fund that finances the helium project as it is presently undertaken, I think that that would not be a question.

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

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong support for H.R. 1772, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire certain interests in the Waihe'e Marsh for inclusion in the Oahu National Wildlife Refuge, introduced by my colleague from Hawaii, Representative Patsy Mink. The Waihe'e Marsh, also called the Kahalu'u wetland, is located on the windward side of Oahu. Acquisition of Waihe'e Marsh is vital to the integrity of the Oahu National Wildlife Refuge [Refuge]. The purpose of the refuge is to protect and manage a network of wetlands throughout Oahu for the recovery of endangered waterbirds, migratory birds, and other values of natural wetlands. Specifically, Waihe'e Marsh is identified as a priority wetland site in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's regional wetlands concept plan: Emergency Wetlands Resource Act [USFWS 1990]. Throughout Hawaii there has been a substantial cumulative loss of wetlands. I would like to point out to my colleagues in the House that the natural environment of Hawaii is one of our planet's most significant treasures. The islands are home to more unique species than any place of similar size on the Earth. Yet, Hawaii has the most alarming concentration of species teetering on the brink of extinction. While Hawaii makes up only 0.2 percent of the land area we account for nearly 75 percent of the Nation's historically documented plant and bird extinctions of the United States. Currently, more than one-fourth of the 959 animals and plants on the U.S. endangered and threatened species list come from Hawaii. Under H.R. 1772 Waihe'e Marsh would be rehabilitated and managed for the recovery and support of endangered Hawaiian waterbirds, such as the endangered Hawaiian Stilt, Hawaiian coot, Hawaiian moorhen and Hawaiian duck, which are all protected under the Endangered Species Act. Also, wetlands in Hawaii provide habitat for several species of migratory shorebirds and waterfowl which are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. I want to mention to my colleagues that the importance of Waihe'e Marsh is not limited to plants and animals. This has been an issue that has been worked from the grassroots. I commend all the hard work put in by the local communities. The Waihe'e Marsh is important for the surrounding communities because it naturally serves as a flood control holding area and the vegetation contributes to the control of shoreline erosion for nearby residential areas. Also, the marsh serves as a filter to protect water quality and coral reef communities in Kaneohe Bay. Mr. Speaker, this is a worthwhile piece of legislation that deserves the full support of all my colleagues.