Neil Abercrombie

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I think that was a good example, Mr. Speaker, of the fact that we do have comity on this floor. Some of our colleagues might think we are spelling that ``comedy'' rather than ``comity'' but I think that you and I both are committed to this institution. I have been the beneficiary of your wisdom, Mr. Speaker, and your leadership in this House, and I would hope that I could make a similar contribution in whatever role I find myself on this floor or in any committee, in any post. I think we both view this as a privilege that has been given to us, an honor bestowed by the voters in our districts. But as I indicated, nonetheless, this is an institution in which the politics of this country are played out in a setting which I think is most appropriate for coming to those decisions. In the process of engaging in political debate, inevitably sides are taken. I think perhaps that is one of the reasons why for some individuals they fail to understand that, the proposition, well, why can they not all get along? Why is there what is called bickering? I would hope, Mr. Speaker, you and I have never been in a position of bickering with one another. I think we have probably had a division of thought and philosophy and possibly policy at one time or another, and other times we were not only able to agree but to work in concert with one another toward a common goal, seeking to achieve it. Nonetheless, there are different political philosophies that are put forward by individuals who put themselves up for public office, and people make a decision on those philosophies. So as a result, we often find ourselves in opposition to one another, not necessarily personally, Mr. Speaker, but in terms of political parties and policies that might or might not be pursued. I say all of this by way of preliminary remarks because, as I indicated before my friend from Connecticut came to the floor, there was this list that was put together. I suppose it had a bit of drama attached to it because of the press, journalists categorizing it a certain way, but it was called the enemies list and it was associated with then-President Nixon. Some people were wont to even brag a little bit after that list became known, that they were on that list, and it was a source of some disappointment to some people that they were not on the list. Well, for the 1990's, we have a list, too. The Speaker of the House, Mr. Gingrich, has put together a list, a target list, for next year--I should say for this year, rather--for the congressional elections this year, some 20 to 30 Members of the Congress who are being targeted by Mr. Gingrich for defeat in November for one reason and another, I presume perhaps because of opposition on policies, perhaps, I would hope, effective refutation of the Speaker's positions. In any event, I find myself on that list. I am one of the Speaker's targets this year. I am on the Gingrich target list. I do take that as a compliment. I am very pleased to be on it. I trust and hope that perhaps some of the commentary that I have been making on the budget, and on what I see as the lack of solid policy on Mr. Gingrich's part and his leadership with respect to the budget, I hope that some of the things I have had to say have led him to designate me as a target in this upcoming election. I am very pleased to be recognized. It is not always those of us from some of the smaller States at such great distance, particularly being out in Hawaii, where we would certainly welcome the Speaker after the election in November, hopefully as the ex-Speaker. We will be happy to have him come out and take a little rest with us out there, and I will be happy to provide some hospitality for him, and I certainly hope to be in the victors column when that election takes place despite being a target. But I bring this up about being a target because I do not want to deceive any one of our colleagues who may be tuned in, or others who may have access to our deliberations here, that I am anything other than partisan when it comes to defending what I believe are the interests of the people of the United States, the public interest of the United States with respect to the budget and with respect to the other issues that I have a difference with the Speaker on, and apparently have contributed to me being this target. As the target, I invite the Speaker yet once again to come to the floor. I have done this in the past and do it now. I recall at one point being in the chair, even as the Speaker is now, and had the opportunity to listen to with great interest, Mr. Gingrich's recitation on various subject matters having to do with policy. He has indicated that as Speaker that he does not deal with the day-to-day floor activity here. He has entrusted that to Mr. Armey and his whip structure. He says now that the deal, the supposed deal or the possibility of a deal on the budget has broken down with the White House. So he does not have anyplace to go, I guess, in the afternoons now that he is not speaking with Mr. Clinton, so he should have the time to come down here. Inasmuch as I am going to be a target, I would like to deal with the issues that apparently have upset him, particularly with regard to the budget or any other issue that has caused me to be put into this position by Mr. Gingrich. I invite him to do so. I would like to think that our academic backgrounds, perhaps, might be an inducement to lecture. I suppose some people might see what we are doing here in special orders as lectures, but that is all right. I think it is good to have the opportunity to lay out, in a detailed and comprehensive way, one's position. So I invite him once again and would be happy to see him and yield him time, any time that he wishes to take advantage of it. In the meantime, let me then state a couple of propositions with respect to the budget process and build upon the commentary that I have made to this point. Mr. Speaker, perhaps you recall a bit of my discussion with the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Doggett, in the hour just passed in which I indicated that I thought perhaps, I will not say the Speaker, Speaker Gingrich, misspoke himself, but perhaps I would characterize it as being a bid disingenuous in indicating to the public that he thought that is was not possible to have a balanced budget agreement with the President this year. Now, I am sure you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that I have been very reluctant to endorse the bona fides, if you will, of a 7-year balanced budget agreement, whether it was certified by the Congressional Budget Office or by the Office of Management and Budget which is the Executive accountants, if you will, the scorekeeper. The Congressional Budget Office is our; the Congress', the Legislative scorekeepers. I am reluctant to believe that this could be done without causing a great deal of pain regardless of whether it is a Democratic budget, Republican budget or anybody else's budget. But nonetheless, the indications from the Republican side of the aisle, from the office of the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], was that if the President would only present to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] a 7- year balanced budget as certified by the Congressional Budget Office, that that would be sufficient unto the day, that would involve the kinds of savings the Speaker was looking for, et cetera. Over and over again, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] and other Members of the majority would come to the floor and state with no equivocation, ``Just give us a 7-year balanced budget as certified by the Congressional Budget Office, and have got a deal.'' Well, Mr. Clinton did that. I have my reservations about the bookkeeping, as I indicated, in that just as I do with the Republican proposal. I think I have gone over that in detail before. There are all kinds of gimmicks associated with it. There are all kinds of bookkeeping maneuvers and tricks, all kinds of accounting gambits that put such a budget together. For example, what is called backloading or a look-back provision; in other words, you do not really make the savings until 3, 4, 5, 6 years from now when you have already gone through a presidential election, when you are going to go through two, possible three, congressional elections, when you cannot quite be sure what the economic stability or instability of the country might be. Mr. Speaker, I noticed my good friend from American Samoa is here. I noticed that you had called his name previously, and he is only able to arrive right now. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from American Samoa.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Of the 60 minutes, I would like to cede 30 minutes to my good friends.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. All right.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. But I tell you what. No, I understand that running- down-the-aisle situation. Mr. Speaker, if it is all right with you, I would cede a half-hour of time right now to my good friend.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I just started because you folks missed your time.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Yes, I will.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Is it not then the case, would you agree, that if it was, in fact, safe and it could be done in France or it could be done in the seas in the waters surrounding France, and it has not been done and has been done in the South Pacific, that this is an indication of the continued colonial atmosphere, an example of the colonial mentality that the French still maintain toward the Polynesian people, most specifically those who live in the South Pacific?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, carrying Mrs. Mink's point a bit further, is it not interesting, is it not instructive that the French think that they can move ahead with this testing and at the same time condemn the activities or the presumed activities with respect to testing or the utilization of atomic or hydrogen weapons by Iran or Iraq or Pakistan or the People's Republic of China. Is it not clear that by France, ostensibly one of our allies, despite the fact that it has never cooperated with us in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, as a member of the Committee on National Security, I can say that one of our great difficulties with respect to European security is never being able to know where France will be. Will they be behind us? Will they be beside us? If they are behind us, what do they have in mind for us? What do they have in mind for Europe? We find ourselves in the position of attempting to establish a standard with respect to testing, asking other countries to follow our lead in ending the testing of atomic and hydrogen weapons as an act of common humanity on behalf of all the nations on the planet. And when France moves ahead with this kind of testing, how do we have the moral authority then to be able to say to Iran, to Iraq, to India, to Pakistan, to China, where do we get the moral authority then to be able to say, no, you should cease this kind of activity? It very quickly becomes an argument in which the Western Powers, those who are conceived of as the Western Powers by history, the imperialist colonial powers, are allowed to do as they will with respect to atomic or hydrogen testing and somehow, then, those countries which have been viewed as unindustrialized or Third World or whatever kind of set of adjectives are put upon them, those countries are disenabled from being able to do the same thing that France now carries on. France undermines everything that we have tried to do since atomic testing and hydrogen testing took place, since all of us, from President Kennedy on, on a bipartisan basis in this country, came to the conclusion that this was against the interests of humanity. This goes beyond individual political machinations or individual political posturing. This goes to the very heart of what constitutes a responsible nation in the present-day world acting in a manner in concordance with those actions that promote peace. We are not in a position, then, to complain to other countries about possible testing that they may be doing if we are unable to discipline ours sufficiently to be able to say to France, we will not countenance this. Now, it is one thing, perhaps, for the President to say, look, there are wider considerations. It may even be that the State Department wants to say there are wider considerations. That may be so. An argument may be made. I think it can be refuted and should be refuted. But I do not pretend to have some corner on the market of political wisdom in that respect. It perhaps should be debated. But, to have the Speaker's chair occupied, the podium of the House of Representatives occupied by the President of France under these circumstances is beyond my comprehension. It is a privilege of the House, a privilege of the House to stand on the podium where the Speaker resides and to speak to the House assembled. We are forced into the position of saying that we must boycott this speech, this address to the House of Representatives, and we request our colleagues to think deeply upon this subject. We do not pretend for a moment to be better than someone else or to have greater insight. We are not trying to speak from some morally superior position. Quite the contrary. We are here making an appeal, we are making a pleading, if you will, we are mounting an argument that we hope is persuasive to those who have given so much. I think this is what my good friend from Samoa referred to when we talked about World War II. I hope you will not resent the fact that I think we can go back a little further, World War I. Who was it that left the shores of the United States to go and rescue France in World War I? Who went to rescue France in World War II? And it is a sad chapter, one that still has not been resolved in our own country, who then, with the best of intentions, tried to go into Vietnam in the wake of the disaster that the French created there in Indochina? It was the United States, for good or for ill. We have no apologies that we need to make to the French about taking a position with respect to testing in the Pacific. Some could say to us, yes, of course, the gentleman from Samoa, the people from Hawaii, they live in the Pacific, I suppose we could be seen almost as a special interest in that regard.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, my good friend, the gentleman from Washington, has indicated the scientific basis and the human context, as a physician. My good friend, the gentleman from American Samoa, has made it clear that the United States, too, is a Pacific Nation; that this is not some isolated event in a faroff place. I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is something that very much needs the bipartisan attention of the House. I would hope that the Speaker would reconsider the question of whether or not Mr. Chirac should be allowed to speak, because I maintain that far from being a scientific test, that the information that could have been gained from the testing, ostensibly gained from the testing, we would have been happy to share. The United States of America would have been happy to share. I can say as a member of the Committee on National Security, without violating any sense of clearances or restricted data or anything of the kind, classified data, the information to be gained here is common knowledge to those who will take the time to find out what was required or what kind of knowledge was sought with respect to the effects of this kind of testing, if that was indeed the rationale for it. I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that this was a political statement by the French. They were doing this for political reasons, and precisely because, and I will not dispute anyone with whether or not this was a good political idea or a bad political idea. It was done for reasons that seemed good enough at the time to the French Government, and as a result, and whatever statement they wanted to make, they were willing to take the chance of opprobrium from the rest of the world if they went ahead with these tests in order to make their political statement. I maintain, Mr. Speaker, and I would hope that the leadership of the House would take this into account with respect to my request for reconsideration of whether this speech moves forward, it is a political statement to have someone stand at the Speaker's desk, at the Speaker's chair and the podium, on the floor of the House of Representatives. That is a political statement. It says that you have the privilege of the floor, freely granted by the Members of this House. That I was a political statement. So if the French exploded these bombs for political reasons, are we not saying, then, if we give him the privilege of the floor, that we are, in effect, approving that; that he can do this with no political disadvantage, there is no political price to pay? All we ask, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps there is a protocol situation that the Speaker cannot now rescind, and perhaps not all of this was taken into consideration, but I ask this, then: If the privilege of the floor cannot be rescinded at this time, and I most seriously and parenthetically emphasize, reemphasize, reiterate, that I hope the Speaker and the leadership will reconsider the question of whether Mr. Chirac should be given the privilege of this House to speak from the Speaker's podium. But in the event that that is not possible, I ask, because it is a political statement and will be a political statement to be on this floor, that people boycott this floor; that the cameras that will be in here to record this event will record empty seats of duly-elected Members who are saying, out of respect for the House, out of respect for the people who have sent us here to the House, out of respect for this Chamber and this institution and what it means, that we will not participate, we will not be here in our seats, we will boycott this, respectfully so, because we have a higher duty, a higher calling, a higher political statement to make by virtue of our absence.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, one would think, would one not, that if it were perfectly safe, that they could conduct this test in the bay at Marseille in France? If the tests are perfectly safe, why do they not conduct them in the channel off the French coast? If the tests are perfectly safe, why do not they conduct them in the Mediterranean Sea off the French coast? I yield back to my friend.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Many thanks. I send you my aloha.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Would the gentleman kindly yield for a moment? I certainly will not take advantage of the length of time that you have, but you did indicate that nobody has claimed it. I will be happy to try and claim the money as far as the Medicare is concerned. But I do not want to engage in the kind of verbal jousting that I think has characterized some of the debate.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I quite agree. So my question is a serious one on that leading to the other question about balanced budget, which I am also serious about. I think the reason that the argument starts over Mr. Barbour's offer and then goes off into the ethereal on Medicare is that the argument is not about whether or not there is increased amount of money in the Republican proposal or in Mr. Clinton's original proposals, for that matter, but whether or not, given the expansion of the base population that will be in need of Medicare and Medicaid, whether that will be sufficient to cover the basic needs regardless of how much you are able to rein in the overall expenditures on hospitals, nursing homes, pharmaceutical needs, et cetera. That then becomes, if you will, just allow me another 10 or 15 seconds, that then becomes an argument over different economists making projections as to what the need will be vis-a-vis the population of the United States, the aging population of the United States, the requirement in social security benefits as the baby boomers come in and the number of people contributing to it goes down, et cetera, those kinds of things. That gets into the realm of sheer speculation.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. If you will be so kind, then why would we want to take any money out of that fund? Why would you not want to, if you are increasing the money from $4,800 to $7,100, I will not dispute that, that there is an increase in that number? I would argue that I do not believe that is going to be enough, based on our experience in Hawaii, and so on. That is my view and some others. I mean, economists have a job explaining to other people why they do not have jobs. Right. So one economist will tell you one thing, and, you know, we are victims of that as much as we are beneficiaries. So why would you want to take any money out of Medicare at this time, $270 billion, $240 billion, whatever it is? Why would we want to take money out? To the degree we want to count savings as a result of tightening up waste, fraud, and abuse, tightening up the amount that we are willing to pay for hospital care or doctor's fees or pharmaceutical needs, et cetera, to the degree there is a savings, let us suppose, again for honest conversation sake, that the $270 billion that is proposed for savings is actually savings, would we not want to have that savings reinvested in the system? Are you counting the $270 billion toward the $7,100?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I will not take much longer. This is your time.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Which we have already achieved in Hawaii.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Then, excuse me, why would you not then want to take the $270 billion out of it? Why not apply it toward the $7,100?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I appreciate you yielding the final time. I think you would be able to make, not you personally, but we would be able to make this argument back and forth in a way that could resolve this issue a lot better, then, and I think would be understood more easily and accepted, perhaps more importantly, by the American people as a whole, than if we kept that argument within the Medicare-Medicaid- Social Security syndrome and got rid of the tax cuts. I think if people were not making the association between cuts and/or additions arguments that are made in Medicare and Medicaid, in the context of a tax cut, if we could remove that tax cut from the context, I think that this argument would reach a different level of not only civility but of understandability and perhaps even acceptability within the country.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I am very grateful for your yielding the time. I hope at some point when I am discussing the balanced budget issue, perhaps you could be on the floor, and perhaps I could yield time to you so we might further the discussion.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding this time to me, and the reason that I asked for the time was to reply to the rather astounding claim for preferential treatment by the gentleman from California representing the area around Yosemite National Park, Mariposa County, and adjoining counties. I fail to understand how the gentleman can come to the well of the House and say that he is proud to be a Republican freshman who is going to impose or try to impose his ideology over the welfare of the general citizenry and at the same time ask us now to override the President's veto because people in his district are hurting, because business in his district is hurting. I think I can speak about tourism at least as well as the gentleman from California, having represented the No. 1 tourist destination area in the world for more time in more legislative venues than anybody in this Congress. When we cannot issue visas, we cannot get people to come to this country, let alone to Hawaii to be able to help with our balance of trade deficit. Tourism is the positive force in that area, and yet someone can come here to the floor and say, ``Your people stay out or work, but put my people back to work,'' and then claim some kind of moral high ground in a political debate about being proud to shut the country down, standing up for the principle of I want mine, but my colleagues do not get theirs? Some people have come into this Congress happy that they have never had any legislative experience, citing that as some kind of virtue. I think that kind of claim is so blatantly exposed with that kind of rhetoric to come here on the floor and say, ``I want mine. I don't want to take responsibility for what I'm doing to the rest of the people of this country, but help me out because I have got a political problem.'' I say to my colleagues, ``Shame on you, grow up, learn what a legislature is all about.''

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``present'' on rollcall No. 1; ``no'' on rollcall No. 2; ``yes'' on rollcall No. 3; and ``no'' on rollcall No. 4.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the reason that I wanted to have that minute was to give the gentleman an opportunity to discuss, just for at least a moment, his proposition that the President has not kept his word. I appreciate the civility of his comments and understand he has been an ex-mayor, he has had some legislative experience; but it is hard for me to comprehend why would he punish innocent people if somebody else does not keep their word? We are legislators. Why do we not get together then, and come up with a proposition, and we could present it to the President? I fail to understand the rationale, and I do not think the American people accept the proposition that because the President is perceived by the gentleman from California and his colleagues as not having kept his word, they are going to punish the American people. Punishing the American people will not solve it. We are legislators. We need to solve it right here in this Chamber.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, friends, I am holding here the House rules and manual of the 104th Congress. Amendment No. 1 of the Constitution of the United States, which is incorporated into our rules, says, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. You cannot come into the House of Representatives and decide you are bigger than the Constitution of the United States. Now, we all know the origin of this particular issue. I am not taking issue in turn with the motivations of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. As a matter of fact, we all know that serving on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct is about as thankless a task as you can have in the House of Representatives. I think the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has taken a pounding over the last several months and tried to come up with a good faith interpretation of what needs to be done, but that does not lessen our obligation to do the right thing by our own rulings and by the Constitution of the United States. Further, I will say that I think this is here today principally because of arguments that people have had with the Speaker of the House over the arrangements that were made with respect to a book contract that he signed or did not sign or wanted to sign, or whatever it was. That has been argued at length. I do not think you should make law or rules based on those instances which you think are egregious when it infringes and impedes those elements and principles that you know to be fundamentally right. Why should everybody else be judged by the standard of that person or that instance or that action which you think or you have decided or you have even decreed by virtue of law as being illegal or immoral, or whatever kind ever connotation you want to put on it? Mr. Speaker, I do not stand here tonight just speaking abstractly, as my good friend the ranking member on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct knows. I do not want to stand here without saying I have discussed this with members of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, the ranking member, because I am the coauthor of a book. I put this book together with a coauthor who forswore his own advance because I did not want to do anything here that I had not already completed and then tried in the marketplace of ideas to see whether anybody wanted to pay any attention to it. So my coauthor went without. I was already making a living. I did not need it. That is why I think the Solomon amendment makes sense. If we are not willing to do this, I will tell you what I think is actually happening: Put all unearned income in. Why are you picking on the intellectual property or the ability to move an idea forward? Somebody who is a filmmaker, they could not come in here and be able to get the benefit of that. You put your stocks, your bonds, your investment property, everything else that is considered unearned income in here, then I will be willing to pay some attention, at least to the arguments being made. The bottom line is this, Mr. Speaker: You cannot go against the House rules and manual, which incorporate the Constitution of the United States which says you cannot abridge free speech.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. All I am asking is if you would be kind enough to extend what I think what could be called the usual courtesy of calling us into session before 5 o'clock. 1515

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Majority Leader, you have indicated that you would give at least 12-hour notice on giving us the opportunity to get here. My question is, ordinarily under those circumstances the House is not called into session for possible votes or anything before 5 o'clock when we know that people have to travel. Could we count on the same? That is my only request. I am not trying to ask for special treatment.