Neil Abercrombie

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I want to elaborate, if I might, on the remarks that I made with respect to the so-called antiterrorism bill earlier. As members know, we are constrained by time in our remarks, and by having 5 minutes today, perhaps I can make a little more clear or elaborate a bit on what the grounds were for my opposition. Mr. Speaker, let me quote in part from a story written in today's Washington Post, as follows, excerpting from the story: It marks the first time in more than a century of law on the writ of habeas corpus that Federal judges would have to defer to State court determinations on whether a prisoner's constitutional rights were violated. A writ of habeas corpus is a way for Federal judges to assess whether a defendant's conviction is unconstitutional because, for example, his right to a fair trial was infringed. The writ orders the State to produce the prisoner, the body, or the corpus, so that he can make his case to a Federal court. Mr. Speaker, I had indicated in my previous remarks that this past weekend my wife and I attended a play, were observers at a play that was given in Honolulu in a very small venue. I do not think there were 20 people there, mostly students. It was a student production, student- directed. The set was very simple. There are only three characters, if you will. The play was called ``Death and the Maiden.'' It comes from a work by Schubert and is a beautiful piece, orchestral piece. Death and the Maiden was played by a doctor who is a participant in torture in an unnamed Latin American country. He plays the symphonic piece as he tortures people, to torment them. In the play, a lawyer who has been named to a commission to examine what has happened in the country previously with respect to those who have been arrested and tortured and killed, disappeared, indicates that the reason that the regime was able to accomplish this in the first place was the abandonment of habeas corpus; that is to say, the capacity of the individual to be able to take a case to a Federal judge, in the context of the United States, to ask that judge to determine whether or not he or she is being fairly held. As my good friend from California, Mr. Miller, said to me just very recently in discussion about these remarks and positions on the bill, the loss of our rights and our privileges do not come in grand sweeps. They come by degree, they come by circumstances that are deemed at the moment more than sufficient to erode that particular right. And so I asked friends at the Library of Congress to provide for me a copy of the playwright's essays. Ariel Dorfman, the Chilean writer, is the author of the play ``Death and the Maiden,'' and he was written a book of essays or compiled a book of his essays called ``Some Write to the Future.'' I recommend it to the Speaker and to others who are concerned about this. I realize it was an agonizing vote for many. But in the process of commenting on Chile, the country from which Mr. Dorfman comes, he wrote an essay once called the Political Code and the Literary Code, the testimonial genre in Chile today. In it he says, in that essay: Terror, then, has a public character. As such, it leads to a great ideological operation, which authorizes, in the name of Western, Christian values, a purifying crusade against the forces of the Devil and of the antination. The principal obsession of authoritarian politics is to suppress history and those who could modify it, postulating an unchangeable and superior reality, God, fatherland, family, to which one owes loyalty. What is paradoxical about this ideological framework is that it excuses a repression that, in fact, is never admitted by official channels. Memory of the suffering must survive in gossip, in rumor, in the whispering of what they did, and even in official threats, but at the same time, in each concrete case, in each undeniable and undocumented case, with damaged teeth, genitals, and ribs, in spite of each relative's identification, in spite of the cries of pain, the truth of the violence is denied. The people are punished, but in the long run the relationship is made benevolently and paternally innocent, translating it into terms that are almost familial and intimate: expulsion and exclusion of the wayward, the recalcitrant, the disturbers of public order; reintegration, of the misguided and the repentant. Neo- colonial fascism takes the bourgeois dream to its totalitarian culmination. Mr. Speaker, in that context we see, then, that to eliminate habeas corpus does damage to the Constitution beyond repair.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will yield, it might be of interest in the context that you have just established in regard to the minimum wage to note that the State of Hawaii already has a minimum wage at $5.25. We were an economy in Hawaii based on agriculture. We have moved into one of the most service-oriented economies it is possible to have; that is to say, a dependence on travel and tourism. Yet the argument is always made that if you are in a service economy, you have to keep wages at an absolute minimum. If you are in an agriculture economy, you have to keep wages at an absolute minimum. Yet the prosperity of the State of Hawaii has been based upon the fact that we recognized that people who are working, families that have to work, are best able not just to survive, but to prosper, when they are able to earn more than just a living wage, more than just an adequate wage, but a wage which enables them to fully participate in the economy. That economy is invested in by the very people who are doing the work. The money stays in the area where it is earned. It is not taken by multinational companies, by international companies, elsewhere. It is not moved into a global economy as such. That money earned in that State, whether it is Connecticut, whether it is in Hawaii, whether it is anyplace, whether it is in Georgia, in Cobb County, in Mr. Gingrich's home district, that money stays in that district. That money is invested in that district. Small business people make money in that district as a result of it. Those kinds of wages, the minimum wage, in service oriented jobs, when it is earned, is spent in the clothing store to buy shoes for the children right there in the local community. That is where it goes. The small investor, the small businesses, are the direct beneficiary of the raise in the minimum wage.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I ask that this bill be defeated, and I am sorry to say that I have to disagree with my friend from Illinois, Mr. Hyde, on this. I speak to him personally now and request this, a reconsideration with respect to habeas corpus. This past weekend I saw a student production, in an attic in a home in Honolulu, of ``Death and the Maiden,'' Ariel Dorfman's play about Chile. The principal theme was when habeas corpus is absent, there we have authoritarianism and dictatorship. It leads to torture. In Dorfman's essay on political code and literary code, and I am quoting from it: Terror then has a public character. As such it leads to a great ideological operation which authorizes, in the name of Western Christian values, a purifying crusade against the forces of the devil and of the anti-Nation. He goes on to say: The principal obsession of authoritarian politics is to suppress history and those who could modify it, postulating an unchangeable and superior reality, God, father, and family, to which one owes loyalty. This is the difficulty. If we abandon habeas corpus, we abandon one of the foundation stones of the United States of America. You have heard me on this floor expound before on the right to a trial, the right to be able to vote freely, the right to sue, and the fourth leg of that foundation is habeas corpus, the right to be brought before a Federal court to say that your rights have been violated. If we take that away, then we are succumbing to terrorism. We are terrorizing the Constitution. The time lapses. But the Constitution goes on. I ask, please, Mr. Hyde, reconsideration on the habeas corpus part of this bill, and then perhaps we could vote on the terrorist bill with full meaning.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, as we know, the tax and spend work sheet went out all over the country. One was sent to my district from the National Republican Congressional Committee. It says here, ``Neil Abercrombie's Tax and Spend Work Sheet.'' The only problem is that they forgot to white out Representative Karen Thurman's name at the bottom. They were using a generic one-size-fits- all work sheet for everybody in the country, and they are so stupid that they put somebody else's name on my work sheet. They do not know the difference between Hawaii and Florida. So when they ask me about taxing and spending, I say, ``I don't know, ask the Republican National Committee. They're the ones that put out Representative Karen Thurman's work sheet for my work sheet.'' They say they want to represent the values of the people of the First District of Hawaii. Well, I am in good shape to do that. I do not live in Florida. Why do you not go down to Florida and check with Representative Karen Thurman the next time you want to do that? They told me this campaign was going to be nasty but they did not say it was going to be foolish as well.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against H.R. 3136. My opposition stems not from a desire to prevent the needed increase in the debt limit, nor do I oppose the increase in the Social Security earnings limit contained in section 4, a proposition I supported with my vote in favor of H.R. 2684 last December. Rather, my objection, Mr. Speaker, is to the measure before us, which rests on my adamant opposition to the line-item veto provisions of section 3. The line-item veto is not about money as such. It is about power, specifically the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches of the Federal Government. This has nothing to do with Republicans and Democrats. It has nothing to do with the contract except the contract we should be keeping with history that provided for our constitutional democracy to be able to sustain a balance between the executive and the legislative. It assumes that the executive branch, compared to the legislature, is inherently inclined to restrain spending. In fact, however, congressional appropriations have been lower than the amounts requested by the past three Presidents, Democrat and Republican alike. In denying Congress the authority to single out proposed rescissions for individual consideration, H.R. 3136 denies to the Congress an authority it grants to the President. If the President can unilaterally veto individual items in a single bill, why is Congress required to sustain or override those vetoes as an indivisible package? Why is Congress denied the authority, why are we denying ourselves the authority to judge each veto cast by the President? The upshot is more power for the executive branch, less for the legislature. By giving the President power to veto specific tax and appropriation items within a single bill, H.R. 3136 deprives the legislative branch of its share of its ability to strike a compromise with the executive. Mr. Speaker, it upsets the carefully calibrated balance between the legislative and executive branches of Government. That balance is what inclines our political system to compromise. Look at what is happening in the rest of the world where the executive has exclusive authority. I know I am going to be among the few votes that is going to be cast today. What I regret is, and this has happened before in our legislative history, there will be a few who will try to strike a balance to keep the power of the legislature against the executive, and one day there will be a Ph.D. writing a thesis about it, how we gave up our power, how we gave up the balance of power that exists in our democracy. Vote ``no'' on 3136.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to discuss H.R. 1833, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. During the course of the debate, gory and graphic descriptions are going to be used to exaggerate and manipulate emotions to obscure the real issues. In fact, the title itself is misleading. This is not about abortion on demand, the issue is about women and their families facing a tragic situation. Women who chose to have a dilation and extraction or a dilatation and evacuation preformed late in their pregnancy, do so only as a last resort. These surgical procedures are rarely ever utilized. Fewer than 500 a year are performed. These procedures are used in the case of desired pregnancies gone tragically wrong due to severe fetal anomaly or severe risk to the health or life of the mother. I have read the personal testimony of Coreen Costello and Mary- Dorothy Line.These women and others like them wanted their child and were willing to have a child with disabilities. However, once they realized that the baby could not survive outside of the womb, they had to make a soul searching decision. This was a very difficult decision made by the women and their husbands, but because they chose to have a late term abortion procedure they saved their lives and preserved their ability to have more children. Without the surgical procedures H.R. 1833 outlaws, neither of these women would be pregnant today or even healthy. Under H.R. 1833, Congress would intrude into the lives of Coreen Costello, Mary-Dorothy Line and other women by denying them surgical procedures which ensure their ability to conceive more children. H.R. 1833 says to American women: your health and fertility mean nothing to us.This bill flagrantly violates women's rights and demotes them to second class citizenry. The Supreme Court ruled in the cases of Roe v. Wade, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey that if a woman's life or health is endangered, late term abortions can not be banned. Yet even as amended by the Senate, H.R. 1833 does not have a genuine life exception. Pregnancy does not qualify as a physical disorder, illness or injury. In addition, H.R. 1833 also does not provide an exception for when the mother's health is at serious risk. The language in H.R. 1833, under legal scrutiny, clearly violates the Supreme Court's rulings since it does not provide life or health exemptions. This bill prevents women from receiving the safest possible medical care in the rare instances when such care is called for in the most trying of personal circumstances and anguish. The bill is an example of the impossibility of writing a law of general application for situations which clearly demand individualized professional judgement in consultation with the parties personnely effected. To interfere in such conditions is an affront to moral sensibility and it disregards the profound consequences both physicians and their patients must resolve.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share the experiences of Pamela Ferguson-Brey. She is the Honolulu League of Women Voters Human Resource chair and she atteded the U.N. Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, China. In September, 1995, I joined women from around the world at the United Nations Fourth World Conference in China. The Non- Governmental Organization (NGO) conference provided a platform for community organizations from around the world to influence their governments to move more quickly toward equal rights and human rights for women and girls. The NGO forum also provided women from around the world with a forum to highlight issues from their neighborhood, town, city, region, and country and brought participants together to discuss local, national, international solutions to these issues. The NGO conference was an overwhelming experience. From the moment that I first boarded the plane to China and during the conference there was an unspoken acknowledgment, a bond and an excitement between the conference participants. Tens of thousands of women from around the world together for one purpose--to accelerate the movement of governments toward equal human rights for women and girls. While we were strangers and did not all speak the same language or have the same customs, we all shared a unique understanding about our status as women. As women, we know what it means to be denied human rights because of our gender status. As women, we know what is means to be afraid of violence because we are not safe in our streets or in our homes. We know what is means to be denied equal access to reproductive and medical care. We know what is means to be denied a seat at the table when policy decisions are being made about our lives and rights. And we know that in over a dozen counties, through infanticide and dowry deaths, women and girls are killed because of their gender. The bond between women at the conference was also a reflection of the commitment that these thousands of women had to make to realize the changes that are necessary at the local, national and international level to assure that women have equal human rights. At the opening ceremony to the NGO conference NGO participants sang ``I'm going to fight for women's freedom, never turning back, never turning back.'' I think of these words and the conference and I am recommitted and energized to help my own community move forward more quickly toward equal human rights for women and girls.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, am I entitled to do that? Can I make an inquiry?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I thank very much the gentlewoman from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz] for the opportunity to speak in opposition. I want to indicate to the gentlewoman and to the Speaker and Members that this was not planned in any other way. I was not aware that there were not to be speakers allowed. I thought there was an hour and that this could be undertaken, so I am grateful for the opportunity. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to House Resolution 369. Allusions were made to Iran-Contra. I was here, however briefly, when that issue was first being raised in the mid 1980's, I do not see that this is comparable in any way, shape, or form. As far as I know, the fifth amendment is still alive and well in the Constitution of the United States, and if there are people who refuse to testify for whatever reason, they are entitled to do so. If I understand correctly the gentlewoman's comments that preceded me, that the existing House rules with respect to contempt and subpoenas cover the situation adequately, there is no need. If I understood correctly the gentlewoman's comments, as well, there is no need for this extraordinary authority. My question then becomes, to what end is this resolution being put forward? If the rules of the House already adequately cover it, if the rules of the committee already adequately cover the situation with respect to subpoenas, contempt, et cetera, if all the rules and regulations and the admonitions incumbent upon us in the Constitution are still in place, then why are we going ahead with it? If sworn depositions are not in order except under the rules and regulations as provided by the House, well, then, I think we should abide by that. I do not understand why we are having this resolution brought forward in this manner without reasons being given as to why the resolution is necessary in the form that it takes. The title here says ``to provide the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight special authorities to obtain testimony for purposes of investigation in study of the White House travel office matter,'' but there has been no presentation that I am aware of that indicates why special authorities are required to obtain testimonies for the purposes of investigation and study. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would urge a ``no'' vote on this, at least pending some kind of sufficient explanation as to why these special authorities should be granted.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Can the Speaker indicate what he heard on the floor in terms of the ``ayes'' or the ``nays''?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, is my understanding correct that an hour was allotted to the discussion on the pros and cons of the resolution, one-half hour to each side, and further is my understanding correct that there was a limitation on the speakers announced?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure I understood. If the inquiry is for debate only, parliamentary inquiry further through the Chair, may I inquire through the Chair as to whether any speaker in opposition will be allowed?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation which calls for fair representation on all Federal Judicial Circuit Courts of Appeals. Currently, only two States, West Virginia and Hawaii do not have representation on their circuit Court of Appeals. In fact, it's been 12 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 their 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 to 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 is not another law to add to the books. This legislation is about continuing the integrity of our third branch of Government, fairness and representation. I strongly urge my colleagues to support and pass this bill.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I find it rather strange that we are taking up this legislation today in the manner in which we are. I will attempt to answer the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] as well. I think his question is a good one: What would you do in place of this legislation? Let me say what I think we should do. I think we should get rid of the embargo entirely, open it up. We are dealing with a nation here who shares western values. I think if we dropped the embargo entirely, Mr. Burton is shaking his head, I wish we had more time. We could have an exchange at some later point, perhaps in special orders or something of that nature. I do not associate the people of Cuba with the government any more than the people around the world do necessarily with the government officials that we have here. I think that the way to end the dictatorship in Cuba is to open up our trade completely. I think the regime would fall very, very quickly under that kind of circumstance. But, because my time is limited, unfortunately, I am trying in good faith to give an answer to Mr. Burton on that. If we go with the legislation that is before us and allow the suing to take place, who are going to bring into the suit? Will Meyer Lansky come back then and the Mafia? Is that who we want to put back in charge? I come from an island people. We understand what colonial domination is all about. I can tell my colleagues how my interest in Cuba first started because the oligarchs in Cuba that controlled sugar and slave labor there, which competed with our free collective bargaining individuals in Hawaii that produced sugar. We understand completely what was involved in the 1950s. I do not want to hear crocodile tears at this stage about dictatorships. I understand exactly what is taking place in Cuba there. If my colleagues want to bring the Mafia back in and they want to bring the people who supported those kinds of people back into power, that is up to them. They can do that. But do not try and sell us at this particular time that somehow our allies, then, in Mexico and Canada are going to be subject to some kind of sanction. If we want to get rid of NAFTA, it is OK with me. I voted against it. But if that is going to be the case, it seems to me that to bring the kind of pressure that at least one of the individuals speaking in favor of the legislation brought to bear today, then I think that we are going to have to abrogate the NAFTA agreement as well. I mean, this may be the vehicle for doing it. I do not know. I had not thought about it previously. So when Senator Dole indicates, as previous discussant related to us, that U.S. policy has consequences around the world, I would say that is true. And I think our relationship with Canada and Mexico is a case in point. I think that if we are talking about whether or not we are in control of our own foreign policy, I think we have to take into account whether or not these provocations do occur and whether or not we are going to sanction it. If it is the policy of the United States to allow these flights to take place, then we should say so. I think we should say so up front. We are meeting in the Committee on National Security today, and we have had a discussion already in terms of our authorization as to what our policy should be or not be with respect to Cuba. And if it is our idea to have a provocation of the Cuban Government at this time, then I think we need to say so. And if that is what we want to do, go to war with Cuba, I think we ought to talk about whether or not we are going to go to war with Beijing. Are we going to encourage the same kind of approach from Taiwan toward the mainland of China? I think we have to be very, very careful here with respect to whether we allow the emotion of the moment to rule the legislation which comes before us in the wake of it. With that, Mr. Speaker, I close my remarks and indicate that at some time in the future, I would be delighted to discuss what we should do. And I do not think, unfortunately, the legislation before us today allows that kind of discussion.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, earlier today the House considered on the suspension calendar, H.R. 2778, a bill to give special tax treatment to United States troops in Bosnia. As a strong supporter of the members of our Armed Forces I strongly support this measure. Had I been present on roll No. 44 I would have noted ``aye.''

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a discussion tonight about jobs, and I would say from my observation of the Republican primaries that I expect that Mr. Buchanan and others that are concerned about jobs in this country are going to be watching the result of this debate, because when you talk about cheap sugar you are talking about slave labor. You are talking about exporting jobs of Americans overseas. Make no mistake about it, a yes vote on this is going to be interpreted as being against the American worker, because when you go overseas to get that cheap sugar you are where there are no labor standards. There are no health standards. There are no environmental standards. There are no safety standards. We fought a war in this country to end slavery, and yet we are telling ourselves that in order to have cheaper sugar we are going to import slave labor sugar from people around the world who are being devoured by oligarchs, sugar oligarchs who have made it their business to destroy their people. They will destroy this country. Do the Members think that refineries are going to exist in this country when cheap sugar that is harvested by slave labor can go into a refinery in that country? That is what is going to happen. This is about jobs in this country. Urban Members of both sides of the aisle say that they are going to find cheaper sugar products in this country. Not only is that not true, but it is undercutting the people who are the best producers of sugar in the world. This is a jobs program. Vote for American workers. Vote down this amendment. Mr. Chairman, let me say first and foremost, if I had my way we would leave the no-cost sugar program alone. However, people asked for reform. The end product we have in the H.R. 2854, the Agricultural Market Transition Act, is reform. Domestic marketing allotments are eliminated. The loan rate will effectively be reduced. The marketing assessment paid by growers for deficit reduction purposes is increased 25 percent. The foreign sugar import level is raised by 20 percent. Yet, the no-cost provision which has been in effect since 1985 is still maintained. So if reform is what you want, reform is what you got. Mr. Chairman, for over 150 years, sugar has been grown in the State of Hawaii. Sugar has played a major role in the historical, cultural, and economic development of Hawaii. However, the survival of sugar is now in question. Over the past decade, sugar production in Hawaii has dropped drastically. In 1986, over 1 million tons of sugar was produced. In 1995, the amount will be approximately 492,000 tons. If Hawaii sugar producers were inefficient or unproductive I could not support the sugar program. Yet, the data proves that the Hawaii yields of sugar are among the highest in the world, about 10.5 tons an acre in 1993. In addition, Hawaii's sugar field workers have the highest standard of living of any agricultural workers in the world. The only way the world sugar market competes with our domestic sugar industry is to artificially subsidize their sugar industry and to utilize slave labor. Foreign competitors do not have to comply with Federal and State standards for worker safety, wage and healthcare benefits, and for environmental protection. The concept of free trade is splendid, but for sugar it is a fantasy. One on one on a level playing field Hawaii sugar producers can beat anyone. In fact, according to a 1994 Landell Mills Commodities Studies the evidence reveals the United States to be the second lowest cost among the world's 31 major beet-producing countries, and 29th among 62 cane producing countries. Among the world's 13 producers of corn sweetener, the United States ranks as the absolute lowest cost. This Nation's highly efficient sugar farmers are ready, willing, and able to compete against foreign farmers. Until a level playing field exists, however, it would be a mistake to dismantle a successful sugar policy while other nations continue their market-distorting habits at America's expense. Mr. Chairman, during the debate someone may bring up the Sweetener Users' Association, which represents the big, multinational food, candy and soda corporations, poster child--Bob's Candy of Albany, GA. As they go on to say, if sugar weren't so costly in the United States, they could stay competitive and not be forced to move jobs overseas. It is the sugar, says Bob's Candy. It costs too much here in America. Bob's Candy is forced to move operations to Jamaica because sugar is cheaper there. Well, my colleagues, let me tell you the rest of the story. Could it be there are other factors that brought Bob's Candy to Jamaica? Like, maybe the fact that Bob doesn't have to pay his Jamaican employees anything near what he's paying his Georgia employees? Or perhaps, because there's no NLRB, no OSHA, no EPA, no Medicare payroll taxes to contend with in Jamaica? Could any of these factors have played a role in Bob's decision to locate in Jamaica--or was it just the price of sugar, as big sweetener users say. Incidentally, according to Dunn & Bradstreet, Bob's Candy is in the top 25 percent in terms of profitability of all American candy makers. Bob's Candy is simply a case of a profitable candy maker trying to use the sugar program as a convenient scapegoat for its decision to move good-paying American jobs overseas. And, in turn, the big corporate sugar users are trying to hide behind little ol' Bob's Candy as a vivid example why Congress should scrap the sugar program. Well, I don't buy it--and neither should the American public. Mr. Chairman and my House colleagues, support good policy, support American jobs, support the American economy. Vote against the Miller- Schumer amendment: immediate disaster, disguised as transition.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I thank the Chair. I wish to address that quite directly, Mr. Speaker, because I believe that the issue under consideration as embodied in the privileged resolution most certainly is in order to be discussed, should we pass this privileged resolution, and the decision as to whether or not we should pass the privileged resolution and whether or not we should pass the privileged resolution and whether it is properly before us is yours to make. I would like to argue, Mr. Speaker, as follows: That in the House rules and manual which the Parliamentarian has been kind enough to provide to me, there are numerous citations in here with respect to precedents as to the question of personal privilege, questions of privilege, in the absence of a quorum, et cetera. But fundamentally and elementally what is before the Chair is as follows: The question of privilege shall be first those affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, integrity of its proceedings. I do not think that is necessarily at issue here. Probably a rather abstract argument or intellectual argument could be made it is. But I rest my case to the Chair on the second part, those affecting the rights, reputation, and conduct of Members individually in their representative capacity only. Mr. Speaker, we have in the Pacific, aside from the representation with the capacity to vote on this floor existing in Hawaii, Members from Guam and American Samoa. In addition, we have certain jurisdiction over island groupings in the Pacific under the Department of the Interior. Mr. Speaker, I maintain to the Chair and to the Members that the rights and reputation and conduct of Members individually in their representative capacity is seriously impaired if they cannot succeed in being able to make an argument to the floor Members assembled as to whether or not Mr. Chirac should be able to appear. I do believe it is well within the boundaries, because those Members cannot vote on this floor. Their representative capacity is solely on the basis of being able to persuade us on behalf of the peoples of the Pacific that there are matters which require our attention. This privileged resolution is directed exactly at that issue. Questions about radioactivity, and so forth, would be discussed under that privileged resolution as to why an affirmative vote is sought. So, Mr. Speaker, I most sincerely request your favorable ruling with respect to the question of privilege, and ask that it be allowed to be voted on, because this is the only way that the peoples of the Pacific, through their representatives, particularly from Guam and American Samoa, who do not have the right to vote on this floor, will be able to make a representation that they are otherwise obligated and required to do so by virtue of their presence here on the floor. It is clear, it seems to me, given the massive implications of radioactive leakage in the Pacific with the numerous explosions that have taken place in these tests, that other than through this representation through the privileged motion, the desirability or undesirability of having Mr. Chirac speak will not be able to be adequately addressed, and it seems to me a very powerful argument can be made for that, should we be allowed to proceed.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I thank the Speaker very much for replying to me. I find this line of response very, very unfortunate in terms of what the House should be about in terms of its business.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Our only recourse is to appeal?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. With all due respect, Mr. Solomon, I am doing my level best to maintain regular order.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, because it is customary does not mean it is within the rules. I made a parliamentary inquiry based upon the rules. It may have been customary, it may have been desirable, but it is not against the rules to present the privileged resolution today. You have not offered a reason then. Simply because it was customary does not mean it is against the rules. There is nothing substantive that you have offered that prevents this privileged resolution from being before us. I believe I am correct.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, in light of Ms. Norton's just-delivered remarks, I would like to say as someone coming from the last State to be admitted to the Union, the State of Hawaii, that I recognize only too fully what the implications are when you find yourself without representation, when you find yourself having to look to the good will of others. In this particular instance, Mr. Speaker, I think that we need to pay some final attention before we leave the building, before we leave the floor, and pay some particular attention to the proposition, is this actually what we should be doing? I do not mean tonight, Mr. Speaker. I think that the majority party, the Republican Party, and the House, have the opportunity to reconsider in the next day or two whether we want to go home, whether we need to go home bearing the burden of not having resolved the question of the debt limit. Now, we have had arguments made, we can show headlines and present charts indicating that there was ostensibly a breakdown in the budget negotiations. The budget negotiations, I submit, Mr. Speaker, are separate and apart from those negotiations that might occur or should be occurring with respect to the extension of the debt limit. In that regard, Mr. Speaker, I do not think they should be connected. I have listened with care. I have listened with intensity today to the arguments being made. As you know, earlier today, in the absence of immediate legislative business, there was quite an extensive discussion of some hours' length on the floor by various Members with respect to the question of debt limitation, balancing of the budget, and the implications for tax credits or tax cuts. Mr. Speaker, you may recall that I finished a special order just the other day, if you will, paraphrasing the title of an editorial to which I was referring in the Washington Post, the title being ``Who won the budget battle?'' I finished by saying the real question, Mr. Speaker, was who might lose in the budget battle? That is what really counts. We do not want anybody to lose in that budget battle, because we are talking about not only the future, which has been brought up many times by speakers on both sides of the aisle, children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, who will pay, but, rather, what will be lost in terms of what has been referred to over and over again as the full faith and credit of the United States with respect to paying its debts. Mr. Speaker, I submit there are two separate issues here that you and I, either individually, as Members of this body, or as representatives of positions in both caucuses can have, of fruitful discussion on this floor and in the context of the House of Representatives, institutionally speaking, as to what the best course of action is or should be with respect either to the budget or the debt limit. But to argue or make the debt limit extension part of that discussion at the present time I think advances no one's agenda, Mr. Speaker. Not mine. I do not come down to the floor to try and make a political game, rhetorically or otherwise, over arguing this issue. It is much too important, bigger than you or I. So I would hope that there would be consideration in the Republican Conference in the hours and immediate days to come, or, if we do leave without resolving the issue, that there would be a consideration that at least as far as the debt limit is concerned, that for now we set that aside as not being relevant to resolving the very real differences that may be between us politically or otherwise in terms of policy, and that we put the health and welfare literally of the Nation ahead of or at the top of all our priority lists, of all political parties concerned; that we separate that out, and that we have a full and fair discussion, not about the credit standing of the United States, but what kind of credit we can bring to ourselves as Members of this body, and what kind of credibility we can bring to the arguments that we are able to make about the budget: How we balance it, what we do about that, what we do about tax credits, what we do about whether or not there should be tax cuts; and that we argue this thing in a manner and in a context that establishes for the people of the United States, our colleagues, and those who may be viewing or observing our deliberations, that we do it in such a manner and in a context that reflects well not just on us, but on the seriousness of the issues at hand. With that, Mr. Speaker, I close by reiterating my plea that we do not utilize the debt limit extension as one of the fundamental blocks in the building of whatever political stance we may take with respect to balancing the budget or any other aspect of the political discussion that has been under way in these last days.