Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1567, the Accurately Counting Risk Elimination Solutions (ACRES) Act of 2023.

Drought conditions and invasive grasses throughout the country in recent years have compounded the threat of wildfires, and the recent wildfires on Maui serve as a tragic reminder of how serious the risks are. These wildfires devastated a vibrant community and serve as a stark warning sign of the reality of such risks.

Federal lands are particularly vulnerable to wildfires, as they alone experience a fifth of the country's wildfires every year. To combat this danger, the ACRES Act will help mitigate the risk of wildfires across the country by mandating that our Department of Agriculture and Department of the Interior conduct more accurate risk assessment tracking of dry invasive grasses on our federal lands. This will help prevent wildfires before they start. This legislation will also mandate that data collection processes involved in wildfire risk assessments be updated and standardized across both departments to ensure that their cooperation will be seamless and efficient.

Each department will also be required to submit a report of the number of acres of federal lands that underwent a risk assessment every year and provide critical information on wildland-urban interface and wildfire risk. The ACRES Act will add an extra layer of oversight and public transparency to ensure the accuracy of wildfire risk assessments, allowing for more effective wildfire prevention.

This legislation will be especially helpful in Hawaii, which has large public land holdings and currently suffers from a higher risk of wildfires due to vast swaths of land being overrun by dry invasive grasses, directly linking to fires across my state every year. This commonsense bill will enable us to reduce hazardous fuels and protect our communities from this threat.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to help advance smart data collection and protect our public lands from wildfire by supporting this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill to end the exclusionary and discriminatory practices of private shipping services to Hawaii and the other non-contiguous parts of our country.

My home state of Hawaii is located almost 2,500 miles off the West Coast. We depend on shipping more than many other locations in our country, importing well over 90 percent of our life necessities, yet people living in Hawaii have encountered 3 unfair shipping practices.

First, when ordering essentials online, we often learn that a particular online store or item doesn't even ship to Hawaii at all. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reviewed this issue and confirmed that ``some companies . . . are unwilling to ship products to Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the other territories.'' This exclusion prevents a few million Americans in the non-contiguous states from obtaining key products that should be available to them.

Second, as many of my constituents know, those who live in Hawaii are often denied free shipping options from online retailers. It is so painful when a website advertises free shipping and you fill up your shopping cart and input your address only for a red error message to pop up with the news that Hawaii, Alaska, Guam and elsewhere are not included in the free shipping deal.

Third, even when companies do ship to Hawaii, the prices bears no reasonable relationship to the distances involved. The cost to ship to and from anywhere in the United States depends on several factors, including the weight and size of your package and service class. However, according to the FTC, private shipping companies' delivery options may cost considerably more for a destination in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the other U.S. territories than for the contiguous states. For example, a 2-pound package sent from Los Angeles to Hawaii costs $45.33, but the same shipment from Los Angeles to New York is just $14.28. This outrageous price is from a private shipping company that categorizes shipping to Hawaii as an international shipment. It is hard to believe that over 60 years after becoming a state and over 120 years after becoming part of America, Hawaii is still treated as a foreign country.

These price discrepancies also bear no relation to the product and are included regardless of the distance between the sender and the recipient. For example, 1 private shipping company charges approximately $150 to ship a small package from Seattle to Juneau in 2 days, whereas the same package would cost approximately $65 to ship a much greater distance from Seattle to Washington, D.C. in 2 days.

We--the non-contiguous areas of our country--are bearing the burden of these 3 discriminatory shipping practices. My bill, the Fair Shipping for Non-Contiguous Areas Act, addresses all 3 problems. It would require shippers to support all locations within our country. It would also end the exclusionary and discriminatory pricing practices of private shipping companies to and from my home state of Hawaii and elsewhere--excluding them from free shipping or charging exorbitated rates. In doing so, we will break these shipping companies' stranglehold on exposed communities and address another contributor to the sky-high living costs in Hawaii and other noncontiguous locations. I urge my colleagues to support this bill as a matter of fairness for the people of Hawaii and all other Americans who do not live in the continental United States.

Mr. Chair, our national parks are among our most universally supported and treasured institutions, and they cannot survive in an atmosphere of incredible popularity. We simply must find accommodations to protect the basic principles and qualities of those parks for which we treasure them so much.

One of the areas where we have significant problems is in overuse of our parks by commercial air tour operations, which severely degrade some of our parks and have the risk of degrading all of our parks for a number of different reasons, whether they be environmental, whether they be protection of our natural resources, or whether they be visitor enjoyment. Fundamentally, commercial air tours overflying a national park with noise and other disruption on the ground does degrade the park experience for the many who enjoy them in that way.

There is no right to overfly our parks. Now, I concede and agree that there is some reasonable area and use for commercial air tours. I certainly want those that cannot experience our parks to experience them in this way, and I certainly believe that they have a place in our parks, but not where they are today and not where they are going.

We recognized this challenge 23 years ago in this Congress by passing a law which essentially required air tour management plans, which accommodated all interests, and those plans are now coming to fruition. This amendment is on the floor because the sponsor and others do not like the results, which accommodate air tour operations in the vast majority of our parks.

This process has been a good one, a difficult one, one in which the operators have participated. They will continue to have a place under these plans, a reasoned place. The fact that some of them don't like the outcome does not mean that the process is not a valid process.

This process should be continued to its conclusion. It should be accommodated. It should be implemented in a way that is reasonable to all.

This amendment destroys that process and would degrade our parks to the detriment of the vast majority of the people who enjoy our parks.

Mr. Chair, I urge opposition to the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my Boosting Long- Term U.S. Engagement in the Pacific (BLUE Pacific) Act, co-introduced with my Pacific Islands Caucus Colleagues Congresswoman Radewagen, Congressman Bera and Congressman Sherman.

This bill directs a comprehensive and sustained approach to U.S. engagement in the Pacific Islands, a critical part of the broader Indo- Pacific where much of the future of the world is being charted.

The lands and waters of the jurisdictions spread across Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia comprise an area larger than the land areas of China and Russia combined and represent a major portion of the vast Pacific Ocean and our Earth's surface. The peoples of these islands have developed their own proud cultures and identity over millennia, and for centuries now have shared historic, cultural, economic and strategic ties with the United States. Tens of thousands of U.S. and allied servicemembers died throughout the Pacific Islands in World War Two defending the common values shared between our country and the Pacific Islands. Our presents and futures are entwined; they are being and will be determined jointly.

Last year's U.S.-Pacific Islands Summit in Washington and the Strategy for Pacific Partnership released at that summit built on prior versions of our BLUE Pacific Act first introduced by our Pacific Islands Caucus in 2019. They represented a confirmation of our shared histories and path and a full re-engagement on all fronts with the Pacific Islands.

Our BLUE Pacific Act reintroduced today updates our prior versions to account for portions already enacted through other vehicles as well as the U.S.-Pacific Islands Summit. It supports the tenets of the Pacific Islands Forum's 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent, ensuring that our efforts are fully responsive to and synchronized with the expressed direction and needs of the Pacific Islands nations. It specifically codifies the Strategy for Pacific Partnership and requires updates to the strategy every four years. It also includes language encouraging the allocation of more staff to the Pacific Islands, and the facilitation of U.S. support for trade capacity building, environmental change mitigation, education, civil society engagement and security training.

These further initiatives support the significant strides we have made in recent years towards fully reengaging the Pacific Islands region across a range of common values and interests and in response to specific Pacific Islands needs. In this moment, as the Pacific Islands recover from the health and economic impacts of the pandemic and are confronted with increased environmental, security and other challenges, this re-engagement is vital. Our bill says to the Pacific Islands that the United States is a partner they can trust and rely upon over the long term.

For these reasons, I ask that my colleagues support our bill. Mahalo (thank you).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Red Hill Health Impact Act, a crucial piece of legislation to address the health implications of the recent fuel spill at our military's Red Hill Underground Fuel Facility above Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.

My bill, which I jointly introduce with my Hawaii colleagues, Senators Brian Schatz and Mazie Hirono and Congresswoman Jill Tokuda, aims to protect the health of individuals affected by that inexcusable incident, particularly those who lived or worked in a residence or other building served by the water system at Joint Base Pearl Harbor- Hickam (JBPHH).

Red Hill is unlike any other bulk fuel storage facility in the world. Built during World War II, its twenty underground tanks have the capacity to store up to 250 million gallons of fuel. But it is constructed and was operated at a location immediately above the main aquifer for the City and County of Honolulu that provides water to hundreds of thousands of Hawaii residents, servicemembers and visitors.

Although the community has raised concerns about these tanks for many years, in 2021 an estimated 20,000 gallons of fuel leaked from one of the tanks into the aquifer. The contaminated water was then withdrawn from the aquifer and fed into the JBPHH and distributed to thousands of mostly-but-not-exclusively military homes, offices and businesses. Many became ill as a direct result, and many more fear for longer term health impacts not immediately apparent.

Though the Secretary of Defense has since ordered the defueling and decommissioning of Red Hill, a process now underway, the Red Hill incident has had a profound impact on the lives not only of the directly affected individuals and families, but the Hawaii community at large. The contamination of Oahu's main water aquifer has raised persistent concerns about the potential long-term health implications to exposed individuals.

Our Red Hill Health Impact Act takes essential steps to address these concerns and ensure that impacted individuals receive the support and services they need over time. One of its primary provisions is establishing a registry where concerned individuals can sign up to facilitate outreach and collect comprehensive data on the health implications of exposure to petroleum-contaminated water. This registry will provide invaluable information and allow us to identify additional research needs to better understand the effects of such contamination on our health.

The bill further calls for an epidemiological study that will assess potential health implications for impacted individuals over at least twenty years. This study will provide us with critical insights into the long-term health effects of exposure to petroleum-contaminated water and enable us to develop targeted interventions and support systems to mitigate any adverse health outcomes for those affected.

To ensure transparency and accountability, the Red Hill Health Impact Act requires annual reports on the study and its findings to be provided to the appropriate Congressional committees, enrolled members and the public. Open communication and access to information are paramount in addressing the concerns and needs of the impacted individuals and the broader community.

It is our duty to ensure that those affected by this incident are not left to face their health concerns alone after the immediate crisis passes and Red Hill closes. I therefore urge my colleagues to support the Red Hill Health Impact Act, thus prioritizing the well-being of the impacted individuals and recognizing the lasting impact the Red Hill incident has had and may have on their lives.

Mahalo.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleague, Representative Tokuda, in introducing our bill to protect one of the most unique and fragile environments on Earth, our Hawaii, from devastating invasive species.

Invasive species pose an especially grave threat to Hawaii's unique ecosystems, natural resources and agricultural communities, in part due to Hawaii's unique geography. Hawaii is the most isolated island chain and one of the most ecologically diverse places in the world. We are 2,282 miles from the Continental United States, 2,952 miles from Japan and 4,772 miles from Washington, D.C., with no other islands in close proximity. We have within our constrained borders ten of the thirteen world climate zones, with ecosystems ranging from desert to tropical, where plants and animals that found their way to Hawaii evolved like nowhere else. A 2014 survey identified fully 9,975 endemic species in Hawaii. These species include the Hawaiian scarlet honeycreeper, the `i`iwi; the flowering evergreen; and the state mammal of Hawaii, the `ilioholoikauaua (Hawaiian monk seal).

However, tragically, in large part due to invasive species, Hawaii has become the endangered species and extinction capital of the world. The Pacific Islands are home to 44 percent of the threatened and endangered species listed under the Endangered Species Act, and Hawaii currently has 468 species listed as endangered, more than any other state and almost half of the total endangered species nationwide. Many of these species are critically endangered and face an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild. Although we will never know the true number of species that have gone extinct in Hawaii, in 2021 alone nine Hawaiian species were declared extinct.

As one particularly poignant example, four years ago the Atlantic published an article, ``The Last of Its Kind,'' which chronicled the death of George the snail. He was the last achatinella apexfulva, a species of tree snail that is endemic to the island of O`ahu. This article calls attention to the fact that snails in Hawaii are disappearing at an alarming rate, perhaps faster than any animal on Earth right now, victims of various factors in part linked to invasive species.

The threat to our state tree, the `ohi`a lehua, is also illustrative of our growing crisis. Used for poi boards and outrigger canoes, the `ohi`a lehua is important to Hawaiian culture and the islands' watersheds. As the first tree to grow in new Hawaii lava flows, `ohi`a lehua grows throughout the watershed creating new soil, stabilizing steep mountain ridges and comprises approximately 80 percent of Hawaii's native forests. However, rapid `ohi`a death, or ROD, caused by an invasive fungal pathogen, kills `ohi`a trees quickly, and threatens the stability of Hawaii's native forests. Since its discovery on the Big Island in 2014, ROD has spread to Kaua`i, Mau`i and O`ahu, and has killed hundreds of thousands of trees.

Hawaii's unique circumstances also have given rise to one of our nation's most diverse and productive agricultural communities. With a year-round growing cycle, our crops have ranged throughout our history from the highest quality sugar and pineapple and cattle to tropical specialty crops like fruit and cut flowers in the highest demand worldwide.

Yet it is exactly because these crops like our natural resources have adapted to Hawaii's uniqueness that they are the most susceptible to devastation from external species against which they have no natural defenses. Invasive species have drastically impacted agriculture in Hawaii, threatening some of the island's most valuable crops in the state's third-largest industry.

One of Hawaii's most valuable crops, the macadamia nut, remains under threat from the macadamia felted coccid. Macadamia felted coccid has been found in all of Hawaii Island's macadamia growing regions. The felted coccid reduces macadamia tree output by draining nutrients from the tree.

The cattle industry, which is one of Hawaii's most important agricultural commodities, has been dramatically affected by the introduction of the invasive two-lined spittlebug. Since being detected in 2016, the pest now infects more than 200,000 acres of grassland and is clearing lands for invasives grasses that further affect Hawaii's ecosystems.

Yet despite these incontrovertible and growing impacts of external species on Hawaii's natural resources and economy, existing federal law leaves Hawaii largely defenseless against increasingly destructive invasives.

Imports by air and sea, the only means of in-bound transportation to our island state, lack any effective regulation to screen out invasives. This is despite a fairly robust screening of exports from Hawaii to the Continental United States to screen out invasives from Hawaii viewed as harmful to mainland agriculture (invasives that, ironically, were invasives into Hawaii to start with).

I sought to crack down on this lax regime to prevent and curb invasives with my introduction of H.R. 3468 in 2005, modeled after New Zealand and other isolated jurisdictions with then like now the most stringent invasive species prevention regimes in the world. Since the introduction of that bill, the threats from invasives have only grown. Since 2005, 195 invasive species have been introduced to Hawaii. That is in addition to the roughly 5,000 invasive species that have been introduced to Hawaii throughout its history.

Our bill, the Hawaii Invasive Species Protection Act, will require the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Inspection Service (APHIS), in cooperation with other federal departments and the State of Hawaii, to conduct visual, x-ray and canine inspections, as appropriate, on person, baggage, cargo and any other article destined for direct movement to the State of Hawaii. The inspections will search for high-risk invasive species and agricultural materials. The inspections will be conducted at airports, ports and postal sorting facilities prior to direct travel to the State of Hawaii.

Our bill further requires APHIS to work with the State of Hawaii to develop and publish a list of the high-risk invasive species and agricultural materials for the State of Hawaii. It pays for these inspections by increasing Agriculture Quarantine Inspection fees to cover the full cost of inspection.

Inaction is not an option. For example, the coffee berry borer, which was discovered in Kona on Hawaii Island in 2010 already infects all of the coffee growing islands in Hawaii. The coffee berry borer can cause yield losses of between 30 and 35 percent and affects the quality of the coffee beans, directly impacting the income of growers. Had this bill been implemented, it may have helped prevent coffee leaf rust from entering Hawaii. The confirmed and continued presence of this fungal disease, which can lead to yield losses of between 50 and 80 percent, on multiple Hawaiian islands could leave one of Hawaii's most iconic industries devastated.

If we truly care about the threat that continued and escalating invasive species pose to one of the most invaluable and unique ecosystems on earth, in addition to our unique economy and way of life, then the stark reality

is that this bill is what it will take. Again, it is not revolutionary when compared to other countries that have not only recognized this threat but actually done something about it.

And it is certainly not revolutionary when compared to longstanding domestic restrictions on exports from Hawaii, leading to the basic point that if these invasive species prevention requirements are good enough for the rest of the country and much of the world then they're good enough for Hawaii.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the House for its understanding and careful consideration of Hawaii's challenge and opportunity and ask for our bill's expeditious passage.

Mahalo.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Lamba Chi Omega Chapter for its 45 years of dedication and commitment to the State of Hawaii and the Pacific Islands.

Founded on the campus of Howard University on January 15, 1908 in Washington, D.C., Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority is the oldest international Greek-letter service organization established by college- educated African American women, with over 300,000 members in over 1,000 chapters worldwide. Forty-five years ago, the women of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Lambda Chi Omega Chapter followed in their founders' footsteps to start a chapter in Hawaii.

Coined as the ``First Chapter of the Pacific,'' Lambda Chi Omega established a legacy of leadership, service and community involvement that has significantly impacted the lives of the people of Hawaii. The vision, dedication and leadership of the founding members in establishing a legacy of sisterhood, scholarship and service continues to impact in Hawaii today.

The commitment to excellence and service by Lambda Chi Omega Chapter's founders is deeply rooted in the legacy of charter members Annie Briscoe, Sharon Brown, Dale Buffaloe, Bessie Crawford, Ella Edwards, Geraldine Hale, Barbara Hayman, Dorothy Henry, Barbara Jones, Sandi (Lakin) Sumbry, Lorene McLaurin, Georgette Moon, Ada Morgan, Virginia Payton, Lorna Peck, Donna Poindexter, Jane Sayles, Marjorie Singer, Edith Smith and Dannis Thompson.

Through their unwavering commitment to education, health, economic empowerment and social justice, the chapter's members have made an important difference in the lives of Hawaii's residents. In addition, their contribution to the community serves as a testament to the power of collective action and the positive impact that can be achieved when people come together for a common cause.

Additionally, we must pay tribute to Bettye Jo Harris, one of the chapter's pioneers and long-time community activist who has been a leading figure in the fight for civil rights and equality in Hawaii. Through her tireless work on behalf of all minorities, the underserved and the needy, she has spearheaded civil rights advances in Hawaii, and her contributions are worth commending here in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Today, I formally recognize the outstanding service and dedication of the members of the Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Lambda Chi Omega Chapter. Let us all commend them for their tireless efforts and selfless commitment to making a positive impact in the lives of others, and let us all wish them continued success in all their endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, can anyone with any halfway working knowledge of government finances seriously dispute that our federal fiscal house is dangerously out of order?

Our national debt is approaching $32 trillion, doubling in just the last decade alone, and up some $3 trillion in just the two years since I last introduced my Sustainable Budget Act in February 2021. More directly, our debt-to-gross domestic product (GDP), or the measure of our economy's ability to sustain national debt, now stands at 120 percent, doubling since 2000. The fastest-growing part of our federal budget continues to be interest payments on our debt, increasingly outpacing and crowding out critical defense and non-defense spending alike.

In a Congress where we often repeat the platitude that our budget reflects our values, it is disturbing that the main common value reflected is fiscal unsustainability ranging to irresponsibility. We need look no further than a mirror for the root cause: our collective inability to face the music of fiscal responsibility and sustainability.

We clearly need help with our collective inability to confront this reality. My Sustainable Budget Act, again co-introduced yesterday with Congressman Steve Womack, is at least a start toward a solution. It would follow the models of Simpson-Bowles and other such independent, bipartisan commissions charged with focusing on our deficits and debt and recommending a sustainable path for an up-or-down vote by Congress.

Our bill is similar to other proposals, including the TRUST Act that I have reintroduced with Congressmen Scott Peters and Mike Gallagher to save our foundational entitlement programs from similar unsustainability. Together, they offer a far better way to tackle our debt crisis than denial, anger, avoidance, diversion and rhetoric. I urge their prompt consideration and passage.

Mr. Speaker, can anyone with any halfway working knowledge of government finances seriously dispute that our federal fiscal house is dangerously out of order?

Our national debt is approaching $32 trillion, doubling in just the last decade alone, and up some $3 trillion in just the 2 years since I last introduced my Sustainable Budget Act in February 2021. More directly, our debt-to-gross domestic product (GDP), or the measure of our economy's ability to sustain national debt, now stands at 120 percent, doubling since 2000. The fastest-growing part of our federal budget continues to be interest payments on our debt, increasingly outpacing and crowding out critical defense and non-defense spending alike.

In a Congress where we often repeat the platitude that our budget reflects our values, it is disturbing that the main common value reflected is fiscal unsustainability ranging to irresponsibility. We need look no further than a mirror for the root cause: our collective inability to face the music of fiscal responsibility and sustainability.

We clearly need help with our collective inability to confront this reality. My Sustainable Budget Act, again co-introduced yesterday with Congressman Steve Womack, is at least a start toward a solution. It would follow the models of Simpson-Bowlesand other such independent, bipartisan commissions charged with focusing on our deficits and debt and recommending a sustainable path for an up-or-down vote by Congress.

Our bill is similar to other proposals, including the TRUST Act that I have reintroduced with Congressmen Scott Peters and Mike Gallagher to save our foundational entitlement programs from similar unsustainability. Together, they offer a far better way to tackle our debt crisis than denial, anger, avoidance, diversion and rhetoric. I urge their prompt consideration and passage.

Mr. Speaker, l rise today in support of S.7, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Technical Amendment Act of 2022. This bill will ensure the full inclusion of Native Hawaiians, the indigenous peoples of our country whose origins lie in Hawaii, in the Services, Training, Officers and Prosecutors (STOP) Grants for Tribal Coalitions program under VAWA.

Violence against indigenous women has reached crisis levels on tribal lands and in Alaska Native villages. In Hawaii, gender-based violence against Native Hawaiians is also at a breaking point.

Much like their American Indian and Alaska Native counterparts elsewhere, Native Hawaiians face substantially higher rates of intimate partner violence, family violence, sexual assault and sex trafficking than any other racial or ethnic group in Hawaii. According to most available data from the Officer of Hawaiian Affairs, 67 to 77 percent of sex trafficking victims in Hawaii are Native Hawaiian women and girls, and 37 percent of reported child sex trafficking cases in Hawaii involve Native Hawaiians. They are also disproportionately represented across the many forms of sexual violence.

To address these issues within Native Hawaiian communities, we must develop and implement community-driven, culturally relevant and intergenerational approaches for supporting Native Hawaiian women. Unfortunately, because of a drafting error in the 2013 VAWA reauthorization bill, Native Hawaiian domestic violence victims have been excluded from VAWA STOP Grants, which deliver just such programs, and thus effectively deprived of vital services and support. While tribal coalitions and Native Hawaiian Organizations are eligible for STOP Grant funding, both tribal coalitions and Native Hawaiian Organizations are limited to only serving American Indians and Alaska Natives, not Native Hawaiians. This must be corrected.

The VAWA Technical Amendment Act simply adds Native Hawaiians as eligible for VAWA-related services from Native nonprofit grantees. Any Native Hawaiian Organization interested and eligible to provide critical domestic violence and sexual assault services to Native Hawaiian survivors must be given the opportunity to do so. This technical correction will allow this to happen, ensuring that Native Hawaiian Organizations can serve Native Hawaiians in need of these critical services.

More work lies ahead for our federal government to address and eliminate the ongoing violence against indigenous women in our country, and I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on these efforts to support all Native survivors of domestic and sexual violence.

Mahalo.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 75th Anniversary of the Hawaii Wing of the Civil Air Patrol (CAP). Founded in 1947, the Hawaii Wing of the CAP works to support the mission of its national organization in my home state. What began as a volunteer organization to mobilize civilian aviation resources for national defense following World War II has evolved into a premier public service organization that carries out emergency service missions when and where needed.

The Hawaii Wing of the CAP, as well as the CAP wings in Alaska, Guam and Puerto Rico, only came to be because of the determination of Sarah Park of Hawaii. She was an avid pilot and took her first solo flight at age 16 shortly after the end of World War II. The same year she took her first solo flight, she began working to convince CAP's National Headquarters to change its rules so that Hawaii and the other territories at that time could create their own CAP wings.

Due to her persistence, in 1947 the Hawaii Wing began its operations. It initially served as an additional resource for national defense and sought to protect Hawaii by conducting observation flights around the islands. The Wing's first Commander was Lieutenant Colonel Ben Dillingham II, who received a Bronze Star for meritorious service in World War II.

Since its inception, the Hawaii Wing has performed critical public safety missions for the State of Hawaii. As early as 1957, the Hawaii Wing became part of the Hawaii Emergency Services Tsunami Warning Program for Kauai Island, and to this day, CAP aircraft are the only state resources for issuing tsunami warnings in places where there are no warning sirens or the sirens are inoperative. Additionally, working both in the air and on the ground, the over 600 members of the Hawaii Wing perform emergency services for the Hawaii Federal Emergency Management Agency and augment search and rescue services throughout the state.

A major part of the Wing's community outreach is providing aerospace education to Hawaii's youth and inspiring them to pursue careers in aerospace; aviation; and other science, technology, engineering and mathematics-related fields. The Wing's cadet programs also provide flight experience to students, which can spur lifelong interest in aviation or encourage the pursuit of a career in related fields. Along with these invaluable educational experiences, the Hawaii Wing instills values of leadership and character in their recruits which will help cadets in all aspects of their life and help them give back to their communities.

Please join me in extending a mahalo to the Hawaii Wing of the Civil Air Patrol for its service in our skies and in our communities and a hearty congratulations on its 75 years of service to the people of Hawaii.

Madam Speaker, each year our country recognizes October as Filipino American History Month, a time for all Americans to celebrate the incredible past, present and future of our fellow citizens whose heritage lies in the great country of the Philippines.

I am especially humbled to do so as the Representative of Hawai`i's First Congressional District, where some 190,000 Filipino Americans live, more than any other of our 435 districts throughout the country. With Hawai`i's Second Congressional District that has the second largest Filipino Americans population at about 180,000, our Fil-Am community in Hawai`i stands at 370,000. In total, fully a quarter of all Hawai`i residents are Filipino Americans, by far the largest percentage of any state or territory.

We observe Filipino American History Month in October because the first recorded arrival of Filipinos in the continental United States took place on October 18, 1587, when the ``Luzones Indios'' came ashore from the Manila-built galleon Nuestra Senora de Esperanza in Morro Bay, California. Today, across the country Filipino Americans have a population of approximately 4,400,000 and are the third largest Asian American and Pacific Islander group in the United States.

Many of the early Filipino immigrants were young men who came to the United States seeking a better life. Most found work in Hawai`i, California, Washington, and Alaska. This first generation of Filipino immigrants are commonly referred to as the Manong generation (Ilocano for first-born male). They worked mostly physically demanding jobs in tough conditions for very little pay. Over the years, they fought against discrimination, found a way forward and made a better future for themselves and their future generations. They became respected members of communities throughout our nation.

The history of the Fil-Am community in Hawai`i is particularly rich and echoes the national story. In 1906, the first fifteen sakada contract laborers arrived in Honolulu from the Philippines aboard the SS Doric, marking the first sustained immigration into our country and the humble beginnings of Fil-Ams in Hawai`i. These first immigrants, those that followed and the subsequent generations eventually became trailblazers in politics and government, the military, business and entrepreneurship, journalism, popular culture, music and the arts and more.

1. Domingo Los Banos was Hawai`i's first Filipino American school principal and a loyal veteran of the 1st Filipino Infantry Regiment that fought in the Philippines during World War II.

2. Carolina Dizon Wong broke a glass ceiling when she obtained an M.D. degree and became the first Filipino American to start a medical practice in Hawai`i in 1952.

3. Peter Aduja became the first Fil-Am elected to public office in the United States when he was elected to the Hawai`i Territorial House of Representatives in 1954.

4. Ines Cayaban was the first Filipino American graduate of the School of Public Health, Nursing and Social Work at the University of Hawai`i. She received the prestigious Jefferson Award in 1986 for her service.

5. In 1994, Ben Cayetano was elected the Governor of Hawai`i, becoming the first Filipino American governor of a state in our union.

6. In 2019, Roy Macaraeg became the first Fil-Am to become a general officer in the history of Hawai`i's citizen soldier ranks.

In Hawai`i, we also regularly honor the over 250,000 Filipinos who answered the call to protect and defend America and the Philippines in the Pacific theater. In 2016, President Obama signed into law the Filipino Veterans of World War II Congressional Gold Medal Act to bestow Congress's highest honor upon those veterans. With my colleagues in the House, I have introduced our Filipino Veterans Family Reunification Act, which seeks to reunite World War II Filipino soldiers with their children, so that we can honor those living in our community who fought to protect the free and open Indo-Pacific that we have today.

Each and all of these lives of achievement are but a small sampling of a broader community that has achieved so much and contributed so much to the rich fabric of our country. And the story of Filipino Americans is still in its early chapters.

This is why it is important that we take the time to recognize groups like Filipino Americans. The story of Filipino Americans, and to an extent, the stories of all of our various ethnic groups, is the story of America. From very humble beginnings, they have risen through hard work, sacrifice, commitment to advancing the next generations and mutual support to achieve so much already. That well describes Filipino Americans overall--embracing the responsibilities and opportunities of America while honoring and treasuring the rich heritage of their ancestral homeland.

All of this is why I joined my friends and colleagues Congresswoman Young Kim, Congressman Bobby Scott, Congresswoman Michelle Steel and others in introducing this bipartisan resolution to express support for the designation of October as Filipino American History Month. We urge our colleagues' support to promote an ongoing appreciation of the contributions of Filipino Americans to our country and the rich diversity of our Nation.

To Fil-Ams everywhere, ``Maraming Salamat Po'' and ``Dios ti Agngina''--congratulations. I truly look forward to partnering with them on their next proud chapters.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6965, the Visit America Act.

U.S. travel and tourism is one of our country's core industries. Pre- COVID, it generated some $2.6 trillion in annual economic output, was one of our largest export and service industries, and supported fully 1 in 10 U.S. jobs. In many States, my own Hawaii being a prime example, it is our leading industry.

But COVID taught us in spades how fragile this economic and jobs generator can be. Very frankly, it has never earned full respect in terms of Federal Government attention, focus, and support, given its prominence.

U.S. travel and tourism needs and deserves far more. This bill, in which I am joined by the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), our House Travel and Tourism Caucus, and other colleagues, in addition to all aspects of the industry, is a necessary start on a new chapter through a coordinated, high-level Federal effort, including a 10-year travel and tourism strategy and finally, finally, like other countries, an Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Travel and Tourism.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge its passage.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1256, I call up the bill (H.R. 263) to amend the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 to clarify provisions enacted by the Captive Wildlife Safety Act, to further the conservation of certain wildlife species, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 263.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the question that this bill addresses is whether the private, unregistered ownership and exploitation of big cats, meaning lions, tigers, leopards, jaguars, cougars, and hybrids of them should continue considering significant and real animal welfare, public safety, and law enforcement safety concerns.

H.R. 263, the Big Cat Public Safety Act says no, and would end the ownership of big cats as private pets and prohibit exhibitors from allowing public contact with big cats, including cubs.

This bill is a culmination of over a decade of bipartisan effort. The Big Cat Public Safety Act, in one form or another, has been introduced by, cosponsored by, and generally supported by Republicans and Democrats alike for well over a decade. Since the 112th Congress, Big Cats have garnered 933 bipartisan cosponsors. It was initially introduced by three different Republicans over a number of Congresses, as well as the current Democratic sponsor.

We have continued to refine the bill in the decade since its first introduction. We passed it by suspension last Congress, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it again now.

The Big Cat Public Safety Act is endorsed not only by numerous environmental, animal welfare, and other organizations, but by countless law enforcement agencies and associations, including the National Sheriffs' Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, State- specific sheriffs' associations, and individual law enforcement officers.

We need to look no further than the compelling testimony from Sheriff Matt Lutz before our Natural Resources Committee to understand the broad concerns with the status quo.

In 2011, specifically, more than 50 exotic animals, including 38 lions, tigers, and cougars were released into the public from a private residence in Zanesville, Ohio, shutting down a highway and terrifying the neighbors.

Sheriff Lutz led the law enforcement response to the crisis. He testified at our hearing this year that his department didn't have any inventory of how many animals there were, they barely even knew that they were there to start with, and his officers weren't trained, obviously, to deal with big cats and other exotic animals released into a public setting en masse.

Incredibly, no one was killed or seriously injured in Zanesville that day, but as Sheriff Lutz testified: ``The outcome could have been much worse if any single condition had been just slightly different, and it could be far worse the next time.''

Precisely because private ownership is unregulated and largely unknown, we don't know how many big cats are currently kept in private ownership in the U.S., but estimates are as high as 20,000.

Privately owned big cats are often purchased or bred as cubs for photo ops, and as they grow larger, they are sold into the exotic pet trade or on the black market for wildlife parts. Adult big cats in private ownership typically live in inhumane conditions that threaten public safety.

Since 1990, around 300 dangerous incidents involving big cats have resulted in human injuries, mauling, and death. In many cases, the animals are shot and killed, as first responders are not equipped for these situations.

In 2003, Congress unanimously passed the Captive Wildlife Safety Act, which amended the Lacey Act to prohibit importing, exporting, buying, selling, transporting, receiving, or acquiring big cats across States and the U.S. border.

Though State laws vary, there is no Federal policy regarding the private possession or use of big cats, and one is critically needed.

This bill narrowly focuses on privately owned animals. It includes exemptions for exhibitors with U.S. Department of Agriculture, or USDA, Class C licenses, and current owners are grandfathered in as long as they register with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and abide by listed regulations.

H.R. 263 will protect first responders and the public, as well as the animals themselves.

In addition to public safety concerns, the exotic cat trade fuels other criminal behavior that we in Congress should not be supporting.

As just one example, the TV series ``Tiger King'' showed us that there is a dark and dangerous side to keeping lions, tigers, and other big cats in captivity. In fact, Joe Exotic from that series is in jail for violating the Lacey Act and the Endangered Species Act.

Now, some opponents of this bill argue that we need to make changes to the bill to help small zoos stay in business. This bill would not affect small zoos. The reality is that most zoos, whether they are big or small, already have policies in place that reflect the Big Cat Public Safety Act standards. They are not going to be asked to do anything that they are not doing already. They don't allow public contact or cub petting, and they already keep cats at a safe distance away from the public. There are only a small few who still allow it, and they shouldn't.

Now, we may hear claims from my colleague on the other side this is a USDA, U.S. Department of Agriculture issue, not a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issue. The fact is that the USDA does not regulate private ownership of animals like big cats.

The Fish and Wildlife Service has long been responsible for regulating big cats' interstate transfer and commerce under the Lacey Act and has the authority to regulate the possession and breeding of endangered species, including big cats.

While the USDA provides basic requirements for preventing cruelty to exhibited animals, the Fish and Wildlife Service is the one that must provide stringent standards to ensure that threatened and endangered species are managed to actively promote conservation, regardless of whether the animals are exhibited to the public.

The Big Cat Public Safety Act merely strengthens and expands an already existing framework under the Lacey Act. It is a commonsense, and, again, uniquely bipartisan solution to address public safety and animal abuse concerns.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a July 26, 2022, letter from the Congressional Budget Office.

Congressional Budget Office,

U.S. Congress,

Washington, DC, July 26, 2022.

Hon. Raul M. Grijalva,

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has

prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 263, the Big Cat

Public Safety Act.

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be

pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Lilia

Ledezma.

Sincerely,

Phillip L. Swagel.

Enclosure.

H.R. 263, Big Cat Public Safety Act--July 22, 2022

[By fiscal year, millions of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------

2022 2022-2027 2022-2032 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Direct Spending (Outlays)........... 0 * * Revenues............................ 0 * * Increase or Decrease (-) in the 0 * * Deficit............................ Spending Subject to Appropriation * 3 ** (Outlays).......................... ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Quigley, on his work on this bill, and I urge all Members to vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, to my colleague's initial comments as to energy and the economy, nobody denies the critical importance of those issues, and, yes, of course, we all should be working collectively on those particular issues.

But by that measure, frankly, I would have wished that more of my colleagues on the other side would have voted for the bill immediately prior to this, which is a major issue and initiative to solve our supply chains and to take care of our national defense in terms of our chips. Also, by the measure that he outlines, we should not have addressed other critical issues in our country--for example, gun violence, women's rights, and civil rights. Of course, we should have done that.

The fact of the matter is that this Congress must and can address the many challenges of our country, and, yes, those challenges include, for this particular hour, the danger posed to our public and our law enforcement communities by unregulated big cats.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley), the author of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, to the comments of my colleague and friend from California, he says that this situation of private possession of big cats is already covered by current law. That is incorrect. They are not regulated under Federal law. The private possession is not regulated, nor is the private utilization and exploitation covered by current law.

He complains that this would set up a duplicative environment. Neither USDA nor the Fish and Wildlife Service is regulating in this area right now.

So, it is a question, if one accepts the premise of which way you go in terms of who is best to regulate it, it is not going to duplicate anything that either of them does, but it will complement more accurately what the Fish and Wildlife Service is responsible for, which is, number one, enforcement of the Lacey Act, which this is a natural extension of, in which we focus on the trade and endangered species and the impact of that trade not only on the public safety but on the survival of those species around the world.

Number one, the Fish and Wildlife Service does, in fact, deal with endangered species. In fact, it is our primary agency for doing so. So this is a judgment that the Fish and Wildlife Service is the appropriate agency as opposed to the USDA which has a different direction that it takes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), who is the chair of the full committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in response to my friend and colleague from Georgia, I simply want to read a list of some of the endorsers of this particular legislation.

These are all members of law enforcement: The National Sheriffs' Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, the Sheriffs' Association of Texas, the Maine Sheriffs' Association, the West Virginia Sheriffs' Association, the Arkansas Sheriffs' Association, the Kansas Sheriffs' Association, the Louisiana Sheriffs' Association, the Buckeye State Sheriffs' Association of Ohio, the Vermont Sheriffs' Association, and the Iowa State Sheriffs' Association.

I have gotten to four lines of a whole bunch of other endorsements from law enforcement.

Clearly, they regard this as one of the areas that we should address for this country out of the many challenges that we face. So I do think it is appropriate that we devote just a little bit of time to what is concerning them.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. Speaker, first of all, to the ranking member's comments, this is an informed judgment about which of two existing Federal agencies is more appropriate to manage and administer what, I believe, if I hear the ranking member correctly, is our common goal, our common goal of ending the status quo as to the private possession and exploitation of big cats.

So this is a judgment that we disagree on. I have articulated our reasons why Fish and Wildlife is the better one. He has his view of USDA. It is a policy call for us to make. But we are not disagreeing with the overall goal, I don't believe.

His amendment, by the way, not only--his proposed amendment not only proposed to put it in USDA, but also to essentially preempt the preemption of Federal law. So, in other words, there is a jumble of State laws out there, ranging from good, solid State laws, to no State laws; and that creates a real complicated and very confusing puzzle for all kinds of people, again, including law enforcement.

So you cannot apply a Federal standard across the country with one sentence, and then, in the next sentence say, oh, by the way, any State can do anything it wants. That doesn't make any sense at all.

So either we go in with the Federal standard, or we don't go there at all. Our judgment under this law is that we need to go there with a Federal standard.

As to my colleague's comments on priorities, I would, again, refer to my earlier comments. Those are critical priorities that we are all trying to address.

Certainly, I haven't checked the roll call vote on the bill that we just passed, CHIPS, but I hope, if they are truly interested and focused on inflation, on energy, on self-sufficiency in our country, then I would hope that I saw a ``yes'' vote for them on one of the most major pieces of legislation that we will be passing and the President will be signing shortly to end our supply chain reliance on places like China.

My colleague also knows that we have coming up a major wildfire bill to address that challenge that we all agree is a critical challenge for our country, and I certainly hope that he will view that bill favorably as well, if, in fact, we all have that shared goal.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I am prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

First of all, I do want to thank my colleague, the ranking member of the full committee. He is a very good ranking member and a very good person to work with on many challenges on our Natural Resources Committee.

I appreciate his comments at the outset of this debate which, I believe, reflected an agreement as to the problem and as to the goal. We may be sitting here debating some of the implementation, but in this Congress, if we can

agree on the problem and the goal, that is a step forward, and I appreciate at least that we have that common agreement.

Yes, we do have disagreements in terms of the exact way to approach this; specifically, which Federal agency should actually have the con on this. We have outlined our arguments here and elsewhere, and we have a disagreement, and that is part of the democratic process. We believe we have the better view of that, given the Fish and Wildlife Service's focus.

I do want to take issue with his comment that it took 2 days to debate this bill in the Natural Resources Committee. Actually, the debate having to do with this particular issue in the Natural Resources Committee was far less than 2 days. In fact, I didn't add it up. It probably amounted to 2 hours of those 2 days. The rest of it was really debating other issues in the context of this bill.

So this is not a particularly complicated problem to grasp from the law enforcement, from public safety, from an animal welfare perspective, and it is not a particularly difficult problem to identify very concise options and to make a decision on those. Those things were vetted in the Natural Resources Committee and are being vetted on the floor here. But to say that this took 2 days, in all due respect, is not accurate.

I do want to comment briefly on the comment having to do with State laws are already handling this. Yes, of course, this is always an issue that we have in determining whether, in the context of our work here, we should have the Federal Government apply standards or leave it to the States.

In this particular case, we have the worst of all worlds. We have differing State laws in terms of the private ownership and exploitation of big cats; and we also have both Federal and State laws that both preempt and leave it to the States.

But I would submit that the Captive Wildlife Safety Act, which is where we started on this almost 20 years ago, a Federal law that said that we were going to, as a country, state that you can no longer import these big cats from their homes; thus, decimating their populations where they came from, and encouraging a trade that has led them to the brink of extinction in most cases. We said that that is a Federal matter, and that is what we are trying to follow.

This is only an extension of that particular act. So I think it is a particularly worthwhile area for us to develop Federal standards and end a lot of doubt among the States and among the Federal Government and the States collectively and get on with the goal of protecting our people, protecting our animals, and protecting our law enforcement.

I urge adoption of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to join so many others in honoring the life and legacy of U.S. Congresswoman Patsy Takemoto Mink and the 50th Anniversary of her signature stamp on our nation, Title