Neil Abercrombie

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 390.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, on October 17, I was unavoidably delayed on my return to Washington, DC, from Hawaii because of a plane delay. Had I been present I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 714 and ``yea'' on rollcall votes Nos. 715 and 716.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I find this a profoundly sad day. We are talking here, and actually having people stand up on the floor of the House of Representatives, the people's House in the United States of America and saying that if the Moran amendment passes we will be introducing the concept of elections to working people with respect to who might represent their positions as to the terms and conditions of their activities in the workplace. That is what the whole collective bargaining idea has been about. Yes, it probably is strange to some of the people in this body, I am sorry to say, that workers might have an idea about who could represent them; that the condescending patronizing idea that possibly workers know what is good for them and can organize themselves accordingly some people still find strange. Mr. Chairman, what I find strange is I know that my mother was fired from her job for marrying my father. My mother. This is not ancient history. My mother was fired from her job teaching in Buffalo, NY, for marrying my father. And I remember her saying to me when I first got involved with organizing labor, that all she could do was go to the principal's office, then go to see the superintendent of schools and stamp her foot. There was nothing she could do. It was the depression and the assumption was that if a woman married, then it was up to the husband to provide and she lost her job. No recourse. I do not know what team was involved there. I do not know what organization got put together by management in Buffalo, NY, during the depression. What about all these mergers and layoffs? Is there a team put together to discuss what the compensation for Ted Turner is going to be? I know he got on television and said he was never going to starve again. Well, I am certainly very happy about that, but I do not know if any team got together to discuss it. I know that with virtually every merger that takes place in this country, thousands of people are laid off of their jobs. Has it been discussed with them? Is that a concept? Yes, in this private sector out there, which is a nonunion sector right now, I guess it does strike people strange that people might want to organize. Let us go over what the Moran amendment says. It says that employee involvement groups that discuss the terms and conditions of employment must be elected by the employees. This is the United States of America. I do not think we would find this strange in the Solidarity movement in Poland. I think we are suggesting the same thing in Burma. I think we are suggesting the same thing all over the world and yet we want to take it away from ourselves? Mr. Chairman, we have to vote on this. This is going to make a statement for all of us in here as to whether or not we believe that the working people of the United States of America are not only capable of making decisions about the terms and conditions of their life and their workplace, but that we, in fact, as Americans, proud Americans, free men and women, are encouraging that and supporting that. That has made the difference for labor and management in terms of freedom and democracy in this country ever since this Congress, this House of Representatives, this legislative body, this national representative body said that organizing for collective bargaining purposes was a fundamental right of working men and women in this country. To vote against the Moran amendment is to say that we oppose free elections by free men and women with respect to the conditions of work that they want to endure or undergo. Of course they can speak with management. Will they discuss the salaries and compensation of management? [[Page H 9550]] Will that be part of the team effort? I doubt it. It has not been that up to this time. Mr. Chairman, what I say is if we are in favor of men and women being able to determine the terms and conditions of their work in a cooperative setting, then allow them to elect the people who are going to represent that point of view. To do anything less is to undermine the very basis of collective bargaining in this Nation.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I hope the gentleman agrees with me that perhaps there is not even an argument being made so much as questions being raised. To that degree, if I may be granted just a moment or two more both for the benefit of our colleagues, the committee, and for the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley], with whom I have worked very, very closely and for whom I have great respect. If the gentleman will just give me a moment, I will state for the record so that it is explicit, Mr. Speaker. With respect to H.R. 402 and the base closure, commonly known as the BRAC, all the decisions to close and realign bases in Hawaii or elsewhere will continue to stand and will not be affected by this legislation. With respect to the Barbers Point situation, Barbers Point Naval Air Station, which is the most recent base closure report proposed, proposed by the BRAC Commission, a modification to the previous base closure decision, H.R. 402 will not interfere with that decision to implement the modified closure decision at Barbers Point. On the base reuse and local reuse issue, which was raised, on the question of title II of H.R. 402 and affecting the reuse of Hawaii military bases or any other bases under the BRAC by the local reuse committees, let me make the following points: the bill contains a very tight restriction on the ability of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands to obtain base closure properties in order to secure a favorable CBO scoring of the bill. The legislation excludes--and this is for everything in [[Page H 9074]] the legislation, not just title II, as the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] knows--the legislation excludes any Federal lands that would generate income or would be expected to generate income for the Federal Government. This restriction appears in the bill in three separate instances and represents a major hurdle for the acquisition of base closure property by anybody in those circumstances, including Hawaiian homeland. Second, I pointed out that the CBO and the Department of Defense expect that any reuse of the Barbers Point land would generate income for the Federal Government. I should also note that Barbers Point is the only site in Hawaii that is eligible for reuse under the base closure process. Given the fact that no lands that could generate revenue for the Federal Government would be eligible for acquisition under this bill, a transfer of Barbers Point land to the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands does not appear to be a question. Finally, I understand the Department of Defense has raised a concern that H.R. 402 might disadvantage the interests of base reuse committees in Hawaii. Let me reassure my colleagues, there is no legislative language to that effect, nor no intent to that effect or in this regard. This concern is without substance. As I pointed out earlier, we have a rather unique situation at the Barbers Point Naval Air Station in which the most recent base closure report proposal had a modification to the previous base closure decision. I will tell the Members what that modification is. It is to ensure that the Navy keeps the beaches, the recreational beaches. I have an idea, Mr. Speaker and Mr. Hefley, that this whole thing has been generated because there they are afraid that possibly some objections might be raised that the beaches in and the cottages attendant to the beaches might somehow fall into the hands of the Hawaiian people. I will state for the record here that I voted for the Base Closure Commission report, the modified report, in which it says the two beaches--and I can name the beaches for you, I have them here, Nimitz Beach and White Plains Beach, beach recreational areas. That is the modification, to retain them, that they will be in there. All I am asking for is access to them. I am perfectly content to have the Navy retain the beaches in Hawaii as vital to the necessary strategic military importance of the United States in the Pacific. But to have an entire bill that has been worked out in good faith on a bipartisan basis for the better part of 2\1/2\ years, to be objected to at this point or subject to some kind of scrutiny other than on the basis of the merits, seems to be outrageous. The Navy can have the beaches. Can we please have the bill? That was a rhetorical pause. Maybe we could exchange beaches, Mr. Speaker, for some beaches in Alaska, perhaps above the Arctic Circle. Do you think they would be interested in that exchange?

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

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I recognize the concerns of the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] and telephoned him earlier today when I became aware of the mirrors that had been raised this late in the game. I did not see the particular memorandum to which he referred in much of his remarks until just about an hour or less than an hour before these proceedings. I can assure the gentleman as well as the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], that, had I been aware of some of these presumed objections earlier, I certainly would have brought to everyone's attention. The fact is, if the gentleman will allow me just a few moments to go over the history very quickly here, this particular section in title II has been before the Congress for 15 months now. Apparently the Department of Defense discovered it in August of this year. That may be more of a reflection on the capabilities of the Department of Defense to get its work done than it is on the deliberative processes in either body in our national legislature. I regret to say, Mr. Speaker, that the memorandum prepared for Mr. Mark Wagner, the Assistant Secretary for Defense Economic Security, whatever that is, on the subject of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, dated August 7, 1995, was written by a deputy, which amounts to, I am afraid, a series of editorial comments having no factual basis in the legislation. It is a little bit difficult to respond to what amounts to ad hominem commentary, but I will do my best to do that. Mr. Speaker, there is also another memo dated August 29 of this year from the Department of Defense to the Office of Management and Budget which goes to several points. It states, and I want to indicate this to the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] and to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley], that the Department is not discussing the merits of the claims in the memo, which I find extraordinary. If it is not discussing the merits of the claims, why is it discussing it at all? I will repeat that. The Department is not discussing the merits of the claims. The claims go to two or three points that the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] correctly raised as a result of receiving these memos. The applicability of property at military installations closed or realigned pursuant to the base closure law, potential displacement from property essential for the performance of mission, and creation of special appraisal standards. I can assure the gentleman, and I am sure the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] will in turn assure the gentleman, that the legislation as written in 402 and in section 2 does not in any way obviate any of those purposes of the base closure law or any performance of mission, nor anything having to do with special appraisal standards. The comments are entirely editorial in nature and amount to ad hominem commentary. I can, if the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] desires it or the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley] desires it, submit in detail for the record or say it now on the floor point by point with a refutation, if you will, of these concerns. I can assure the gentlemen it is neither the intent of the legislation nor is the content of the language so far as I am able to determine, that any of these concerns are anything other than editorial abstractions.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my good friend from Alaska [Mr. Young] that I very much appreciate the remarks that he has made. Unless I misunderstood him, I think that some of the objections being raised are moot, rather than mute. Unfortunately, very few of the activities and actions on this floor take place in a mute situation. We may wish for more of that before we are through. Unfortunately the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] has probably missed the general tenor of my remarks in the last minute or so, because he is otherwise preoccupied. I hope he will, however, be able to take note of the fact that I rise in support of the legislation which passed the House without controversy on March 14 of this year. That bill was the product, as the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] has noted, of a lengthy process and negotiation between the Department of the Interior, the State of Alaska, and the Alaska Federation of Natives and other interested parties, one of whom obviously, of course, is the State of Hawaii. It was substantially the same as legislation passed in the last Congress, and it dealt with a number of matters of importance to native Alaskans and to native Hawaiians. However, Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today has been amended by the other body and can no longer be described as legislation that resembled that which I previously noted. To be clear, the Department of the Interior has certain concerns about some of the provisions added by the other body. In this case, however, I defer to the judgment of the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] as to what is in the best interests of the Alaskan natives. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that our colleagues would do that for the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] and myself. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I want to say in addition how much I appreciate the concerns and the attention paid by the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] and the Committee on Resources staff to this bill. The gentleman is quite correct that this has taken actually years to get through. Some sections of it have been months in the making. Hearings have been held. I think that it is fair to say that this has been acted on in a bipartisan way, based on the merits rather than on some of the fears and anxieties that might otherwise have attended this bill. Mr. Speaker, I do hope that our colleagues will recognize that this bill has been put together on the basis of good will and good faith, and that the matters to be dealt with in the bill have long since passed the point of reasonable time to have them resolved. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of title II, the Hawaiian Home Lands Recovery Act, contained in H.R. 402, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. The Hawaiian Home Lands Recovery Act demonstrates a good faith effort by the Federal Government regarding the settlement of claims by the Department [[Page H 9072]] of Hawaiian Home Lands. In simpler terms, this is a land exchange bill from the Federal Government to the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands to make the covenant whole in regards to the set aside of lands established under the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act. Over 70 years have elapsed since Congress passed the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920 [HHCA]. Under the HHCA approximately 203,500 acres of public land was set aside for the ``rehabilitation'' of Native Hawaiians through a Government-sponsored homesteading project. Two major factors prompted Congress to pass the HHCA. First, the Native Hawaiians were a dying race. Population data showed that the number of full-blooded Hawaiians in the territory had decreased from an 1826 estimate of 142,650 to 22,600 in 1919. Second, Congress saw that previous systems of land distribution were ineffective when judged practically by the benefits accruing to Native Hawaiians. The HHCA was originally intended for rural homesteading, i.e., for Native Hawaiians to leave urban areas and return to the lands to become subsistence or commercial farmers and ranchers. Yet, the demand of Native Hawaiians for residential house lots has far exceeded the demand for agricultural or pastoral lots. Since the State of Hawaii essentially assumed the duties of management and disposition of the Hawaiian home lands under the Statehood Admission Act, why would an action be considered a Federal breach? Federal--because (1) these wrongful actions took place prior to statehood, in a time period when Hawaii was under Federal jurisdiction, and in which title to the land was held by the U.S. Government; or, (2) are continuing wrongful actions for which the Federal Government is responsible and only the Federal Government can remedy. Breach--because the wrongful actions are breaches of responsibility under statute, by judicial or legislative findings, through trust law, or moral obligations. Alienation of land, and use of the land for purposes that are not authorized under the HHCA constitute breaches of the trust. There are numerous examples of these breaches in the territorial period. 1,400 acres of identified Hawaiian home lands. The Hawaiian Home Lands Recovery Act seeks to redress this issue by authorizing the transfer of Federal lands to the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands in exchange for Hawaiian home lands retained by the Federal Government. Although the term ``exchange'' is used in this legislation, there is no expectation that DHHL will relinquish land to the Federal Government. DHHL need only relinquish any remaining claim it may have to former home lands now controlled by the Federal Government. The bill would also provide compensation for lost use of Hawaiian home lands controlled by the Federal Government. In advance of land being conveyed to the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands under sections 203(b) and 203(f) of the bill, the Secretary of the Interior is required to determine the value of lands currently controlled by the Federal Government that were designated as available lands under the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act. It is important to note that section 203(a)(1)(A)(i) states that this determination is to be made based upon the HHCA, as enacted. Thus, the valuation shall include lands designated as home lands under the 1920 Act that are not currently part of the home land inventory, whether the withdrawal occurred as a result of executive action, or through an act of Congress. The Secretary is also required to determine the value of the lost use of lands currently controlled by the Federal Government so that this, too, can be compensated. The valuation required by the legislation is not intended to be a unilateral action by the Secretary. On the contrary, section 203(a)(2)(A) requires the use of a valuation method that is acceptable to the Chairman of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and, most importantly, is in the best interests of the beneficiaries. These two conditions exist regardless of whether the Secretary uses an appraisal or non-appraisal method of valuation. Section 203(a)(2)(A) requires the Secretary to be an advocate for the best interests of Hawaiian home beneficiaries in reaching a determination of value. Thus the Secretary has a fiduciary responsibility for seeing to it that the beneficiaries receive the maximum possible compensation. Under section 203(a), the Secretary need not determine the value of land and lost use by appraisal. The committee included a provision allowing valuation by a method other than appraisal in order to promote a speedy resolution of this longstanding conflict. The committee considers valuation by mutual agreement to be far preferable to the burdensome process of appraisal. During our hearings on this legislation, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee was advised that the State of Hawaii had appraised most of the Federal properties in question. The GAO, in their report to the committee, analyzed the State appraisals and found the appraisal methodology used by the State was appropriate and that proper accounting principles were employed. The State appraisals therefore supplant the need for a separate appraisal by the Department of the Interior. In the unfortunate event that the Interior Department decides to proceed with an appraisal, a number of specific safeguards have been instituted to ensure that the Department properly discharges its fiduciary responsibility to protect the interests of the Hawaiian home beneficiaries. These include a guarantee that the chairman of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands shall have the opportunity to present evidence of the value of the home lands that were lost as well as the value of the lost use of these lands, the right to review and comment on a preliminary copy of the appraisal, and most importantly, the requirement that the Secretary give full consideration of the evidence of value presented by DHHL. Given the responsibility under section 203(a)(2)(A) that the Secretary represent the best interests of the beneficiaries, the requirement in section 203(a)(4)(B) is not ephemeral. When construed together, these provisions require the Secretary to give great weight to the recommendations of the DHHL on matters of value, especially if the interests of home land beneficiaries would be advanced by doing so. In addition to all these protections, the Chairman of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands has the right to dispute the determinations of value for land and lost use. Thus it is unmistakably clear that the Secretary and the chairman of DHHL must mutually consent to the values to be determined under section 203 of the bill. Section 203(b) authorizes the conveyance of land to the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands as compensation for lost lands, and the lost use of home lands retained by the Federal Government. This section further authorizes the head of any Federal agency to transfer land and structures to the Secretary of the Interior for subsequent conveyance to DHHL. I want to contrast the two-step conveyance process described in section 203(b)(5) with the authority for the General Services Administration or the Department of Defense to convey property directly to DHHL under Section 203(f)(6) of the bill. A section 203(f)(6) conveyance would be a direct transfer of title, without intervention by the Department of the Interior, whereas the Interior Department would act as a transfer agent for conveyances executed under section 203(b)(5). Let me point out, however, that although jurisdiction and control of land would be transferred to the Interior Department under a section 203(b)(5) conveyance, the Interior Department's responsibility in completing the transfer is nothing more than a ministerial function. In this case the agency serves as a conduit for consummating the transfer of title to the DHHL. Section 203(f) of the bill establishes a second means of conveying lands to the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands by allowing DHHL to obtain lands that are excess to the needs of individual Federal agencies. Subsection (f) places the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands in the same, or better, status as a Federal agency for the purpose of being notified of excess property and for obtaining the property from the excessing agency. Under no circumstances should the land that has been selected by the Chairman for appraisal under section 203(f)(2), and possible conveyance under section 203(f)(5), be transferred or otherwise disposed of by any Federal agency until the opportunity of the DHHL to obtain the land has expired. Finally, let me comment on section 207 of the bill. This section establishes a cost sharing for Bureau of Reclamation projects on Hawaiian home lands that is the same as the cost sharing authorized for projects on Indian lands. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote Nos. 650, 651 on H.R. 1594 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye'' on both.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my serious concern regarding the decision to eliminate funding for the East-West Center in H.R. 2076, the Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1996. For those of my colleagues not familiar with the East-West Center it is a national education institution administered by a public, nonprofit educational corporation under a grant from the United States Information Agency. Established by the Mutual Security Act of 1960 (Public Law 86-472) the East-West Center promotes better relations and understanding between the United States and the nations of Asia and the Pacific through cooperative programs of research, study, and training. The friendly relationships that exist today between the United States and the countries of Asia and the Pacific can be attributed in many ways to the East-West Center's work. More than 20 countries in the Pacific region, including Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Fiji, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and even Bangladesh and Pakistan acknowledge the value of the East-West Center's programs by their cash contributions. The East- West Center was one of the early institutions involved in the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation [APEC] process. Congress and governmental agencies, such as the Department of State, Department of Energy, and the Agency for International Development [AID], utilize the Center for advice and information. In fact, the Clinton administration acknowledged the value of the East-West Center by including it in their fiscal year 1996 budget request. Given the continued rise of Asia as the fastest growing economic region in the world, and the critical role of Asia in our economic future, it is more important than ever that we continue to support the East-West Center.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, obviously there are not a lot of people on the floor now. I presume, and I sincerely hope that there are people looking in over C-SPAN in their offices or there are staff people and that they have not made their mind up on this. I am speaking obviously in favor of this motion to instruct. Very frankly, I have been through this before on this floor. It has not succeeded yet, but I am appealing. You see I am looking right at the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert] now. I am sincerely making an appeal on the basis that I am the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, and very happy to be working with the gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert] and with the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young]. Our Committee on Resources, what used to be Interior, while it has had a division of opinion as to what should be done and what is in the national interest, has always had great comity and we have worked together and respected each other's opinions. On this, I have worked very hard as the ranking member to try and be a good and productive person on the subcommittee and in the committee as a whole. Obviously, coming from Hawaii, some of the issues that are involved here are something where people could say, ``Well, you don't have to pay attention to it.'' But on the other hand that means I can be objective about it, too. I do not have axes to grind on this. I want it made clear, I am for this kind of drilling. I am not opposed to the oil in the gulf. On the contrary. I see it as security for the United States. We do not have to go overseas looking for oil, either currently for our uses or for looking to reserves. I think it should be profitable. From my understanding of the situation, it is going to be. That is what bothers me. Many of the people here in the House this year have made particular references about deficit reduction. I have found, in my membership on this Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, that everybody who comes in wants to get rid of the royalties. This is due the public, it is due to the taxpayers. It is nobody being ripped off. If anybody is being ripped off, it is the taxpayer in the sense that these royalties go into the Treasury and help us to form the fiscal basis for being able to reduce the deficit, or able to fund other much needed programs. That is why I am making my appeal to the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert] to have a revelation, to have an epiphany here on the floor as a result of this discussion, perhaps, that yes, you do see that we are not trying to stop people in Louisiana, we are certainly not trying to stop the oil companies from being able to make a profit. We want people to work. I do. I am for this as an activity, as I indicated. But it is absolutely clear that there is no reason that is persuasive that, absent this royalty holiday, if you will, that the oil will not be drilled for, that the jobs will not be there, that the security of the United States in terms of being able to have oil will be mitigated in any way. It is quite the opposite. I know that in other instances, other than just the oil question, where there are other minerals that are extracted on the mainland of the United States, they also want to get royalty relief. Yet I find that the States have severance taxes, they have excise taxes, they have all kinds of taxes that they impose. But when it comes to the Federal taxpayer being able to get a share in terms of revenues coming into the Treasury, we want to cut it off. My bottom line is this, then: You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say that we are going to have deficit reduction, that we are going to cut spending and have table-thumping, table-pounding rhetoric in that regard, and then turn around and give all the money away. This is a real test. I do appeal to the chairman of the committee and the chairman of the subcommittee, join with us on this particular issue. This was put in from the Senate side. This did not come out of the House. The gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert] is quite correct. There was a hearing in June 1994. It did deal with whether or not this was going to be an economic drag. What we found with the lease bidding, it is not. I do appeal to you. This did not come out of our committee hearings. We have not had a fight over this in the House. We do not have to acquiesce to this in the Senate. That is what this motion to instruct is all about. Please join with us on this. Think about it a little, as to whether it is in our interest to move ahead and simply acquiesce with the Senate. I say on behalf of, I believe, our process in the House and the relationships we have on our Committee on Resources, and on behalf of the taxpayers who will not benefit from this move, please, let's agree with this motion to instruct. Let's try and do, for once, something that is sensible in terms of the security of our oil reserves and the security of our taxpayer, that we mean it when we talk about having the proper incentives vis-a-vis the Treasury.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak on H.R. 70, a bill that amends the Mineral Leasing Act to permit exports of Alaska North Slope oil. Since 1973 when Congress enacted the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act in wake of the Arab-Israeli war and the first oil embargo, ANS oil has been dedicated solely for domestic uses, as has been pointed out. Over 20 percent of the oil produced in the United States, which currently amounts to about 1.6 million barrels a day, comes from the Alaska North Slope. The oil is transported by tankers, as has been indicated, to refineries on the West Coast, Hawaii, and other domestic destinations. The tankers that ship ANS oil are required under the Merchant Marine Act of 1920--Jones Act--to be U.S. built, flagged and crewed, which I strongly support. Mr. Chairman, my primary concern with exporting ANS centers on its effects in Hawaii, as my colleagues can well imagine. Hawaii was an energy market that is uniquely different from all the other States in the Union. The State of Hawaii depends on imported oil for over 92 percent of its energy supply, a large share of which comes from Alaska. Currently, Hawaii leads the Nation in energy costs. A recent survey found that the average price for a gallon of gasoline in Hawaii was $1.76. The nationwide average was $1.33. In June 1994, the U.S. Department of Energy released a study which has been mentioned as well. It is my understanding that the study concludes that permitting exports would benefit the U.S. economy which I do not propose to debate, yet Hawaii was not even mentioned in the report. Thus, any attempt to make assumptions on Hawaii's consumers and economy based on the DOE study would be inaccurate and perhaps misleading. I was pleased to note during the committee process the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], the chairman of the Committee on Resources, has been very willing to accommodate the concerns raised by myself on behalf of Hawaii consumers. At this point, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Alaska regarding an amendment I offered in the committee. As the chairman will recall, during markup, the Committee on Resources adopted by voice vote an amendment very important to the citizens of Hawaii. As further modified and improved under the committee print, the amendment would ensure that, before making the required national interest determination, the President would specifically consider the likely impact of Alaskan oil exports on consumers, especially in Hawaii and Pacific territories. Because Hawaii has an energy market that is unique and depends on imports for over 92 percent of its energy supply, a large share of which comes from the Alaska North Slope, it is essential that the President satisfy himself that exports will not harm consumers. I understand the chairman shares my concerns and would be willing to work with us in the future should any unanticipated problems develop

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

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, may I say in conclusion to the gentleman from Alaska that Hawaii and Alaska share unique difficulties and opportunities, and I am very pleased to be working with him. The correspondence between myself and the Department of Energy regarding Hawaii's energy situation, clarifying the intent of the amendment, and the understanding that the Department of Commerce monitoring responsibilities required in H.R. 70 evaluate consumer impacts will be included in the Record: Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, June 6, 1995. Hon. Hazel R. O'Leary, Secretary of Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington,

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, if you are going to characterize this amendment in the fashion that the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] just did, I think you ought to take into account what is going to occur if it passes. It means that Benedict Arnold billionaires, and I do not know what page you will find Benedict Arnold, but perhaps some Member of the opposition can enlighten me. Benedict Arnold billionaires who wanted to abandon their United States citizenship are not going to be able to do it and get away with it and take their money with them. Now, that is the bottom line. If that is what we are being characterized, if our actions are being characterized in that manner as being chutzpahs, as having some gall, it seems to me the real gall is to think that someone can renounce their citizenship, can take their money with them, and we are supposed to treat them as if they were a refugee. I coined that phrase Benedict Arnold billionaires, and if this is going to be the thirteenth time we are going to be defeated on trying to get billionaires to pay their taxes, then let it be, and let the opprobrium fall on the opposition.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, the House has supported a patent moratorium for several years now as an interim step to achieving comprehensive mining reform. And, the House, at least, has addressed the overriding need to reform the 1872 mining law by passing comprehensive legislation during the last Congress. Legislation which the House overwhelming supported on a 3 to 1 margin. Fundamental to any discussion of hardrock mining in this country is the need to end the archaic practice of patenting--or practically giving away--public mineral lands. As you will recall, the old and out-dated mining law of 1872, actually encourages the give-away of billions of dollars of gold, silver and other hard rock minerals that belong to the American taxpayer. Under the 1872 law, which governs mining for precious metals, like gold, silver and platinum of Federal lands, miners who discover one of these minerals are entitled to a patent--or fee-simple title to the land. Since 1872, the United States has transferred over $231 billion worth of mineral assets to mining companies, charging minimal administrative cost for the land transfer and no royalty whatsoever. As many of you know, it is the patenting system which legally forced Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt to transfer ownership of nearly 2,000 acres of public land in Nevada--land containing an estimated $10 billion in gold--to a Canadian-owned mining company for the appalling sum of just $9,765. If we do not stop patenting, through mining reform or through a patenting moratorium pending achievement of mining reform, we will see more and more such cases in the years to come. We should move block mining conglomerates from pirating valuable public minerals just because they are able to tie up reform in the Congress. That is where the provision on a patent moratorium in the Interior appropriations bill comes in. This patent moratorium would prevent the transfer of 133,000 acres of public land containing an estimated $15.5 billion worth of valuable minerals to international mining conglomerates for practically nothing. This is what we mean by the slogan: ``They get the gold, we get the shaft''. That is why we need your vote to maintain the patenting moratorium in this bill. Unless Congress acts now by enacting this patent moratorium, title to an additional $15.5 billion worth of mineral reserves--which rightfully belong to the American taxpayer--will be signed over to international mining conglomerates for the paltry sum of less than $1 million. These companies will win the golden ring simply by paying $5.00 an acre--and what do the taxpayers get in return? Nothing, an empty pocket. I understand they dug up Jesse James yesterday. Robbing trains and holding up banks, was just a nickle and dime operation compared to mining public land. Jesse was in the wrong end of the stealing business. The patent moratorium is not comprehensive mining reform: but it is a very important interim step that will save $15.5 billion worth of minerals from being given away to international corporations. So, I urge a vote for the Klug-Rahall amendment. I urge an aye vote to put some hard dollar reality into the rhetoric on reducing the deficit. I urge an aye vote to give a break to the American taxpayer instead of a monster giveaway to marauding corporate interests.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. ABERCROMBIE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I speak in favor of the amendment, and the remarks of the Delegates from Guam and American Samoa would be as my own.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, during this Congress we are going to have the opportunity to debate the vital role of public broadcasting in the educational and cultural development of our Nation. As we discuss this issue I want to share with my colleagues an article that was given to me earlier this year regarding the merits of national public radio. Specifically, the author extols the virtues of Hawaii Public Radio. Public radio is unique and adapts to the cultural, geographical and regional differences in the United States. For instance, while Hawaii Public Radio broadcasts ``Morning Edition'' and ``All Things Considered'' from national public radio they also read the news in Hawaiian and provide the daily news from the Pacific. This is an addition to the classical, jazz, blues, and sundry other programs that anyone can tune into and enjoy. No other radio station provides such a variety of programs to its listeners. Mr. Speaker, diversity strengthens and brightens the fabric of our society. There is a place for Hawaii Public Radio in our society and we must continue to support it. I commend this article to my colleagues and ask that it be printed in the Record at this point. [From the Maui News, Dec. 15, 1994] Making the Maui Scene (By Rick Chatenever) Amazing--the Newt Age isn't even upon us yet, but the media is already back as the target of choice. From both sides. First White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta likened incoming Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich to ``an out-of- control radio talk-show host.'' Trying to become the Gingrich that stole Christmas, Newt wasted no time suggesting that the government should pull the plug on public broadcasting. How easy it is to forget public broadcasting's role in creating a climate that made someone like Newt possible. True, it probably has something to do with his talents (you'd be an over-achiever, too, if your name was Newt). And it probably has something to do with tapping into the mood of a just plain irked nation. Hey, why can't anyone figure out what's wrong--? Hey, why can't anyone fix it--? But PBS was right there with the other panel shows, ushering in the ``don't talk while I'm interrupting!'' shout fests that have now replaced TV analysis from Washington, D.C. insiders. Is it politics, journalism or show business--? You be the judge. The players move back and forth freely--Pat Buchanan leaves ``Crossfire'' to run for president, David Gergen leaves ``The MacNeil-Leher Report'' to try to straighten out the Clinton White House, Mary Matalin and James Carville run opposing presidential campaigns, then go on to live out their own Kathryn Hepburn-Spencer Tracy movie. When Al Gore debated Ross Perot on the merits of NAFTA, they did it with all the maturity of a couple of second graders, fingers in ears, taunting. ``I'm rubber, you're glue . . .'' In this climate, he with the longest wind wins, and the spoils go to the most bellicose. Rush rules the roost . . . but you can bet Newt can't wait to get into the act. Before he does, I'd like to offer a few words in praise of Hawaii Public Radio. NPR, or PRI, or whatever it calls itself to try to stay out of Jesse Helms' direct line of sight, is where the dial of my car radio is most of the time. I quote it regularly. I bore friends with stories of whatever obscure character has shown up as an interview subject that day. KKUA is a magic link, from the two lane roads criss- crossing this island to . . . Everywhere Else. Just mentioning names of NPR voices--Bob Edwards, Cokie Roberts, Baxter Black, Click and Clack, Andre Codrescu, Bailey White, Daniel Shore, Noah Adams, Garrison Keillor, Sylvia Pajoli, Neil Conan, Cory Flintoff, Nina Totenberg, even Frank Deford, when he's not getting to carried away with the sound of his own voice--is enough to draw smiles from those of us who share the habit. When I get together with friends from the Mainland, we discover NPR is something we all have in common. It's the tom-tom beat for the global village. Not to mention, the place to listen to classical music. It's a daily link to what one of my Native-Hawaiian friends still insists on referring to as America. But listening to it from this side of the Pacific is mo' better. Many--many--have been the times when the voice on the radio was coming from Sarajevo, or inner-city Chicago, or Moscow, or London or New Orleans . . . while the view through the windshield was of a cloud-draped Haleakala . . . or whales sporting off Sugar Beach . . . or rainbows disappearing in a West Maui mountain valley. . . . Where else can you hear the latest in the O.J. Simpson case, or get the inside scoop on Clinton White House strategy, as you drive the kids to school through a cane field . . . ? Where else is the six o'clock news read in Hawaiian? Where else is the latest political upheaval in Papua, New Guinea-- they happen regularly, and sound like Marx Brothers movie scripts--cause for a daily update? On a radio dial dominated by demographics and marketing niches, and crowded with stations all trying to sound like each other, only better, Hawaii Public Radio is definitely something else. Mirroring this unique world we live in is one thing. Making it a better place is something else. Just being a source of pleasure in its own right is something else again. Hawaii Public Radio succeeds amazingly well on all counts.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I will vote today for final passage of H.R. 1530, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996 with serious reservations. I strongly support the efforts of the committee in the areas of quality of life improvements for our service members and the provisions which were passed to rebuild the foundation for a vital merchant marine which is essential to our Nation's status as a world power. However, I am deeply troubled with the direction of the bill's retreat from previous commitments to arms control and nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Even more distressing is the tremendous increase in the defense budget for excess weapons inventory. The authorization today includes over $1.2 billion in adds for the down payment on two more B-2 bombers and increases in the ballistic missile defense accounts. It commits us to initial expenditures on weapons systems which we will never be able to procure in the out-years. Today's excessive expenditures in these areas will only make it harder to allocate funds for the weapon systems and equipment which our troops need to fight and win at the front lines in future conflicts. Having said that, the bill makes significant strides in its effort to alleviate the severe military family housing problem. Currently, two- thirds of the families living on base are housed in unsuitable quarters. This bill allows for a 5-year pilot program which will allow for creative solutions to replace a huge inventory of military family housing which has been neglected for decades. I am especially pleased with the private-sector financing alternative. In the past, Hawaii has been very successful in its implementation of this type of arrangement to provide for housing. The housing crisis in Hawaii is one that affects the civilian populace as well as military families. Suitable and affordable properties for rent or purchase are few and far between. This new housing initiative will be a great step toward reducing the tremendous strain on the lives of military and civilians in my State and many others with regard to affordable housing. The committee has also been very supportive of the serious concerns of the Merchant Marine Panel with regard to our diminishing fleet of American-built, American-crewed merchant ships. The provisions in this bill establish a foundation for revitalization of the American merchant fleet. This is a first step, but we must do more. I implore all Members of the House to stand together on this solidly bipartisan issue and help us to rebuild the American merchant fleet which is so vital to the national defense and economic security of our Nation. We must bring this issue to the forefront and demand a policy which will encourage the revitalization and growth of this industry before we lose it completely to foreign competition. We cannot and must not become dependent on foreign carriers and crews for the strategic sealift needs of our Nation. On the issue of impact aid, I applaud the committee for taking the initiative to provide for costs of educating the children of military families in local school districts across the Nation. The areas of the Nation which are heavily impacted by the presence of Federal facilities would bear a tremendous burden if this program had not been funded. This program, while not enjoying as high a profile as the many debates on procurement issues, is of extreme importance to our all volunteer military force. Today's service members have put education for their children high on their list of concerns. Our troops must know that we are as concerned about the education of their children as we are of the funding of ballistic missile defenses. There is a direct correlation to the well-being of military families and troop readiness. Everything possible must be done to ensure that these concerns are not pushed aside in the welter of media-hyped and politically charged issues. The National Guard Civil-Military Cooperative Action Program, which was repealed in this bill, deserves a reexamination in conference. This program enables the National Guard and Reserve to exercise their training in realistic settings while providing valuable assistance to communities across the Nation. It provides training which may not otherwise be available or affordable. This is a dual-benefit program which increases readiness and helps our local communities, rather than foreign communities, receive assistance in health care or infrastructure development. This program provides funding for the military personnel, and the missions performed generally have low or no incremental costs for operations. Congress must act to restore this program for the benefit of the Guard, the Reserve, and our communities. There is a need for further improvements to this bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues through the conference process to ensure that the final product meets the needs of this Nation for a strong national defense which includes trained and ready Armed Forces, economic security, proper education for all our citizens, and a sound foreign policy that promotes democracy and human rights.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I seldom disagree with the ranking member of the Committee on National Security, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], but he said that this is one of the most important votes. And I would like to say that this is the most important vote that is going to be made on not just this budget but the whole budget proposal. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] has made it very clear, and I am in a good position to talk about this, because Mr. Kasich knows that I told him early on in this process, John, one of the reasons I respect you, and I say this to the whole House, is that you are not only honest and sincere, but you bring forward what you really believe in and you back it up. I said, what is going to happen is, everybody is going to stand up and cheer, which is what has happened, everybody is going to give you the accolades. And then they are going to stiff-arm you. As soon as it comes to spending the bucks to make the money, they are going to come right in and they are going to give it to you. And where they are going to do it is in defense, and they are going to do it right with the B-2 bomber. I tell you this: If you do not pass the Kasich-Dellums amendment, if you oppose this amendment, you are sticking a knife in the heart of the fiscal budget proposal that Mr. Kasich put forward and that everybody, so many Members, Democrats and Republicans, have applauded. It is one thing to stand up and cheer for the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and tell him, you did the job, buddy. I am going to be there for you, unless, of course, I have to disappear, which is what is happening now. This is a test of integrity in budgeting. This is a glide path, not to a balanced budget, this is a glide path to balanced budget oblivion. That is what you are heading for. You can put up charts until you choke. And what is going to happen in the end, if Kasich-Dellums fails. That means that you are not going to have a balanced budget. You will be doing ballet with the books is what you are going to do. You are going to have to spend, as Mr. Kasich will tell you and any honest person will tell you, you are going to have to spend 40 percent of your defense outlays in the next budget cycle as it comes up in order to take care of this B-2. If Members listen to people tonight, they would think there were not any B-2's. We are going to have to have a dozen and a half. We are going to be building B-2's and we are going to be putting people to work into the next century, right now. They said 20 that are coming up. We have not even taken delivery on half a dozen. We still have to get up to the number 20. It is not $553 million we are voting on. Members know very well that it is $31 billion we are talking about, that we are not going to be able to find in defense. We are going to have to take it out of readiness, we are going to have to take it out of quality of life, out of operations and maintenance. We have been told over and over again we have to make tough choices, tough choices within every category. We are telling kids they have to make tough choices, elderly people they have to make tough choices. We have to make tough choices in defense, as well. The gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] says we need to make those tough choices, so everyone is saying that. There is nothing tough about this. If Members do not back the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], and Members do not back the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], they are not backing the basic budget proposal that has been put forward about balancing the budget, and they are giving the gentleman from Ohio, John Kasich, all the accolades, and giving him the shaft on the actual budget.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

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