Floor Statements

I thank the Senator and good morning, Mr. President.

I wish to thank Senator Warner for leading this colloquy, and I am glad to join him and my friend Senator Kaine in talking about the effects of sequester and how we need to come up with an alternative to the sequester.

Senator Warner used the word ``stupid'' to describe sequester, and I think that is apt, because what family, in trying to get a handle on their budget, would just make an across-the-board cut to everything in their family's budget. The Senator raised the analogy that no business would do an across-the-board cut, but let's talk about families in our country. No family would cut across the board their food budget, their rent budget. That would not happen. So why are we doing this?

As one of the people who testified before the Armed Services Committee said, sequester was the result of political dysfunction. That is very true because it was never supposed to happen. As Senator Kaine said, I am very surprised to listen to our friends on the other side of the aisle talk about sequester--something that was never supposed to happen, and both Republicans and Democrats had agreed this was not going to happen--now take the position that we are where we are and we need to live by the boundaries of sequester.

What sequester does is it interjects huge uncertainty into our economy, huge uncertainty, at a time when we are still digging out from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Senator Warner and Senator Kaine have both acknowledged that Virginia is ground zero on the bad effects of sequester. If Virginia is ground zero, I would say Hawaii is ground 0.1. We have a huge military presence in Hawaii. They are a big part of our economy. In fact, there are some 101,000 people in Hawaii who are directly employed with the military. That is 16 percent of our workforce. Some 20,000 of them have gotten notices of furloughs, looking toward a reduction in their pay of 20 percent. Talk about the ripple effect of that kind of reduction in their ability to buy products, we can see what the negative ripple effect would be.

In Hawaii, as I said, the military is such a big part of our economy. States such as Hawaii, such as Virginia are among the first States to experience the negative effects of sequester--immediate. Thousands of letters have been going out to say: Expect to be furloughed, with 11,000 people possibly losing their jobs directly. These are immediate impacts.

The top reason we need to replace the sequester with something balanced, reasonable, fair, and not stupid is that sequester cuts jobs. There will be huge job losses, and economists of all stripes have said don't keep going down this path with these kinds of cuts that will severely hamper economic growth and cost jobs in this country. These are senseless cuts.

The State of Hawaii is already reeling from the potential impacts of sequester which will begin in a couple weeks. We have already gotten many of these notices. But the sequester also represents huge cuts to education, housing assistance, and other programs that are on the chopping block. We must listen to our constituents. So many of them, I know, have contacted all of us. There was one letter I received from an elderly woman and her husband. She lives on Social Security and on HUD housing grants--HUD vouchers--and she said: Our Social Security checks are so small.

Yes, while sequester doesn't touch Social Security, it certainly has a potential impact of cutting their housing vouchers.

She said: I don't know where we would go if we lost our HUD housing voucher. We would be homeless. I am so distressed, she wrote to me.

Another letter I received was from an Army reservist who was all set to go for his training. Now multiply this situation thousands and thousands of times across our country. He said due to sequester he will no longer be traveling to the TDY location for his training. Yet he planned his calendar based on his going. The letter he got was that his orders had been canceled for training due to sequester and his billet is going unfulfilled to cut costs.

Failing to provide training to this young man and the thousands and thousands of other men and women who are in our Reserves degrades our Nation's readiness.

I received letters from people who work at the Pearl Harbor shipyard, which is the largest industrial employer in the State of Hawaii, with some 5,000 direct employees, both civilian and military, who got their furlough notices. These are highly skilled people with good-paying jobs. When they think about a 20-percent reduction in their salaries, believe me, they are thinking about how to revise their family budgets, and that revision is not going to involve across-the-board ``stupid'' cuts.

These are just some of the examples of how sequester will hurt a State such as Hawaii. What should we do to replace sequester? My colleagues have talked about it. The American people understand this meat-ax approach to balancing our budget is the wrong way to go because it destroys jobs and it affects many people who are working right now. So the budget put forth by Chairman Murray will reverse this path down no man's land, basically. What the Murray budget says is let's provide a balanced approach. Let's ask a little more from the most fortunate and wealthy, including the corporations, while including more smart, targeted cuts to other areas of our budget.

Let's remember once again that we have already implemented and put in place $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction. So by following the balanced approach that is represented in the Murray budget, we will have reduced the deficit by some $4 trillion over the next 10 years.

As I said, we need to do this in a responsible, balanced way, and it bears repeating--because we are still hearing from our friends on the other side that sequester is what we have; let's just live with it-- that there is an alternative, friends. The alternative is a fair, balanced, smart way to deal with our budget deficit, to create jobs, and to help our families, because our budgets do reflect our values, and our values are about supporting our families, creating jobs, moving our country forward, and enabling us to continue to dig out from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

I thank Senator Warner very much for this opportunity to come forward, and I will have a few more things to say perhaps later on about the budget and how Senator Murray's budget reflects the kind of values we should be putting forth in our country.

Mr. President, before I begin my remarks, I wish to thank Senator Mikulski for the tremendous work she did on the continuing resolution. I know she worked so hard, and yet she is on the floor today to talk about how important passing the Murray budget is. And of course Senator Murray is on the floor also, and I want to thank her for her great work.

I stand in solidarity with all the men and women, my colleagues, who are going to be talking about how important it is to pass the Murray budget, which is a balanced budget that reflects our priorities and our values. The last few years have been hard for families across the country. Our economy is still struggling its way out of a great recession, the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. And we have made progress. For example, the economy has grown and millions of people are back to work. But this progress is not fast enough for too many families in Hawaii and across our Nation.

Regrettably, that doesn't seem to concern some of our colleagues in the House of Representatives. The budget proposed by the House majority, the Ryan budget, would set our economic recovery back and it would do so on the backs of those who can least afford it. Some of the hardest hit will be women and children, the very people who face some of the biggest challenges in today's economy. So I want to focus on how the Ryan budget negatively impacts women in our country.

Women in Hawaii make 82 cents for every dollar earned by a man for the same job. Monthly food costs in Hawaii are 61 percent higher than in the rest of the country. Forty percent of Hawaii households pay more than 40 percent of their monthly income on housing. Hawaii residents pay some of the highest gasoline prices in the country, which we all know can be a serious hardship on family budgets. Our high cost of living is one of the reasons we have a high percentage of women working in two-parent households in Hawaii.

Across my State and across our country, women are waking up every day, working hard, and making ends meet in any way they can. These challenges I mentioned are being overcome every single day by determined women. They work hard to improve their lives and to give their children an even greater shot at success than they had. For many, the support they receive for health care, education, childcare, paying for food and housing, makes all the difference. Unfortunately, the Ryan budget lays out a vision of America where these people, our families, are left behind.

We are told that budgets reflect our values. I agree. What are the values exemplified and reflected by a budget, the Ryan budget, that makes deep cuts in supports such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program--SNAP--and the Women, Infants and Children--WIC-- Program? Combined, SNAP and WIC help put food on the table for over 50 million--I repeat, 50 million--Americans, primarily women and children. The SNAP cuts in the Ryan budget would put over 180,000 families in Hawaii at risk of losing the ability to put food on their table.

What could be more fundamental than putting food on the table? I don't know anyone who could look these families in the eye and say: Sorry that you can't afford to feed your children anymore. We have to balance the budget. We need to close the deficit. Sorry. That, to me, is unconscionable and runs counter to our core values.

The Ryan budget would also deeply cut childcare assistance and Head Start, as mentioned by my other colleagues, leaving more than 2 million children and their families without realistic early childhood or daycare.

In addition, the Pell Grant cuts in the Ryan proposal would make college

less affordable for 6 million women students. Add to that the millions of male students and you are affecting the future education of our country.

These cuts don't just hurt families now, they force parents to choose between jobs and caring for children. They prevent kids from accessing early learning opportunities that we know are vital to enabling these children to succeed in school and in life.

The Ryan budget also slashes support for things such as public transit, housing assistance, and community development. Each of these investments helps make our communities better places to raise a family, which attracts businesses and creates jobs.

Finally, and most egregiously and seriously, in my view, the Ryan budget cuts health care for women of all ages by repealing ObamaCare. By repealing ObamaCare, the Ryan budget takes us back to when being a woman was a preexisting condition, thereby disqualifying her for health insurance or costing her many times more for coverage. If we repeal ObamaCare, analysts project that insurance companies could charge women over $1 billion more in premiums than men are charged for the very same coverage. So by repealing ObamaCare, the Ryan budget discriminates against women. And since when is discriminating against women a core value?

While ObamaCare requires that insurers cover maternity care, only 12 percent of plans on the individual market do so currently. Repealing ObamaCare would also undermine access to reproductive health and family planning services.

Now let's talk about how the Ryan budget would affect seniors. Seniors in our country know the Ryan budget will end Medicare as we know it. They know these changes will force millions of women--and, of course, men--to make do with a voucher for their medical care--a voucher of decreasing value. And since so many women receive lower Social Security benefits than men, while paying higher out-of-pocket health care costs, losing Medicare coverage could be the difference for them between food, housing, or lifesaving medication. Now is not the time to be making huge cuts to investments in programs that provide the very economic security we should be working to improve.

Fortunately, the priorities laid out in Chairman Murray's budget would help to strengthen the economic security so many families are seeking. The Senate budget resolution prioritizes creating new jobs, expanding opportunity, and laying out a strong foundation for economic growth. It builds on the progress we have made over the past few years instead of tearing that progress down.

I applaud Chairman Murray for prioritizing the elimination of the sequester, which the Congressional Budget Office says could eliminate 750,000 jobs. I also applaud her foresight in including investments in early childhood education, clean energy, national security, our veterans and our seniors, and her bill preserves access to health care, opportunities for higher education, and programs such as SNAP and WIC. These supports are vital to keeping our economy moving in the right direction.

The Murray plan will help improve American competitiveness, foster innovation, and open more opportunities for small businesses to succeed, and it lays out a blueprint for responsibly paying for these investments and reducing our deficit in a balanced way. Each and every one of these priorities helps to improve the economic security of men and women and children--families--in our country.

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the Murray plan, a plan that provides a foundation for growth, instead of a plan that takes a meat-ax approach to the economic security of millions of families in our country.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to amendment No. 115, the Toomey amendment. This amendment would reduce funding for advanced drop in biofuels production.

I strongly oppose this amendment for several reasons. First, this amendment undermines our long-term national security. The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review outlines several areas where reforms are imperative to improving our national security. Implementing reforms to strengthen our energy security was one of these areas.

Right now, our military is almost totally dependent on fossil fuels. These resources are finite, priced on a global marketplace, and produced by nations with whom we don't always see eye to eye. There are also new powers rising and new challenges evolving. So to preserve a 21st century force, we need to invest in 21st century priorities. This means we must diversify how we power our military.

The project this amendment seeks to cut is fairly modest in the scheme of the military budget, but the overall benefits to our forces will be well worth it. Our Nation has always invested in technologies that produce long-term benefits and address changing circumstances-- from more advanced tanks and aircraft to faster communications and lighter armor. We have to innovate now in order for our military to have the capabilities to protect our Nation. We need to make the same kinds of investments now in our military's long-term energy needs.

Already the research and deployment of alternative energy is benefiting our long-term capabilities, improving troop safety, and making security operations more affordable. In fact, just last summer, at the Rim of the Pacific Exercise--RIMPAC--the U.S. Navy demonstrated its ``Great Green Fleet'' with surface combatants and aircraft using advanced biofuels for the first time. This exercise--the largest international exercise in the world--proved that our military platforms can use these fuels.

Prior to this exercise, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said of the biofuels demonstration:

The Navy has always led the nation in transforming the way

we use energy, not because it is popular, but because it

makes us better war fighters.

Clearly, continuing to support this type of investment will pay additional dividends that will help ensure the United States remains the world's preeminent military and technological power in the 21st century.

However, there is another reason to oppose this amendment and support the military's ongoing efforts to improve its energy security. That reason is that it makes good long-run budgetary sense. Fossil fuels are a finite resource that are priced on a global market. Increasingly, as I mentioned, this fuel is produced by nations with whom we don't see eye to eye. As global competition for fuel resources intensifies, it is vital that we reduce the amount necessary to power our military.

Not only does our reliance on fossil fuels constrain our assets and resources from an operational perspective, it also puts significant strains on already stretched budgets. For example, between fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2011, the Department of Defense spending on petroleum rose from $4.5 billion to $17.3 billion. That is a 381- percent increase. While that number is shocking, another shocking fact is that during this time the Department of Defense was actually using 4 percent less petroleum. In other words, we are paying nearly four times more money for less fuel.

In addition, global price spikes make budgeting for our current energy costs extremely challenging. According to the Navy, every time oil prices rise by $1, their fuel budget inflates by $30 million. In fiscal year 2012, the U.S. Pacific Command, which is based in Hawaii, faced a $200 million shortfall in operation and maintenance funds. This is directly related to spiking fuel costs. These unforeseen circumstances reduce our military's capabilities and readiness. It is also unsustainable in today's budget environment.

So while the Senator from Pennsylvania argues that biofuels are too expensive now, new technologies are always more expensive at first. That is exactly why we need to invest in scaling up instead of scaling back. The first fighter jets off the assembly line are always more expensive than the 100th fighter off that line. The fact is that it is the height of irresponsibility for us to rely on fuel sources with such unstable costs.

That is why the military is already working to reduce its fossil fuel usage and to develop and deploy alternatives wherever possible. At the U.S. Pacific Command, investments in renewable energy, energy-efficient buildings, and fuel cell or hybrid vehicles are making installations more cost-effective. In fact, PACOM expects to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels for electricity by 80 percent. That would reduce the total DOD electricity demand in Hawaii by 34 percent and save the DOD $42 million per year in electricity costs. This $42 million could be put to better uses.

These are savings that can be replicated on a servicewide scale and will save far more money that could be used to support O&M than the Toomey amendment will. The military recognizes this. This is why GEN James Mattis has stated:

I remain committed to unleash the burden of fuel from our

operational and tactical commanders to the greatest extent

possible.

These investments are about improving our national security by changing the way we power our military. Advanced biofuels is an investment in that goal and one we should continue.

As U.S. Marine Corps Gen. John Allen has said:

Operational energy equates exactly to operational

capability. Let's all work this hard, together!

So I urge my colleagues to vote against the Toomey amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Providing Resources Early for Kids Act of 2013--the PRE-K Act.

Research shows that quality early education is foundational for success in school and in life.

The PRE-K Act will help more children enter school ready to succeed. It creates a new federal-state partnership to provide better preschool opportunities for our country's children. High quality preschool makes the biggest difference, so this bill focuses on quality.

The PRE-K Act would provide Federal grants to States to strengthen quality. States could use the funding to increase the number of highly trained early educators in preschool classrooms.

The bill would improve the student-to-teacher ratios in preschools; provide vital comprehensive services such as health screenings and nutritional assistance.

The bill would increase the hours per day and weeks per year families have access to high quality early education programs; and improve programs for our youngest children, from birth to three years old.

States would need to coordinate with existing Head Start providers and their State Advisory Councils.

The PRE-K Act recognizes that not all states have a high-quality state preschool program in place yet. This bill meets states where they are. States that already have a high-quality program could apply as ``Qualified States'' and get money improve quality and expand to serve more children. Other States, like Hawaii, could apply as ``Selected States,'' earning Federal grants to establish a high-quality preschool program within two years.

In Hawaii, Governor Abercrombie is leading the fight to build a State preschool program for low-income families. The PRE-K Act could support Hawaii's efforts through Federal partnership grants.

Decades of research show that high quality early education programs can help kids enter kindergarten ready to learn and avoid falling behind. Later in life, kids who have high-quality preschool are more likely to avoid crime or teen pregnancy, graduate high school and college, earn more income, pay taxes, and need fewer public services.

The studies have found that investing $1 in quality early learning can bring a return on investment of between $2 and $17 down the line. A University of Hawaii/Good Beginnings Alliance study of a theoretical Hawaii program found we'd get $4.20 for every $1 invested. In this tight fiscal environment, wise Federal spending is key. High quality early learning is one of the best investments we can make.

That is why business and financial leaders, from the Hawaii Business Roundtable to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, agree that quality early education is critically important in providing the tools children need for success in school and in adulthood.

Law enforcement officials know that quality early learning helps prevent kids from falling behind, dropping out of high school, or getting involved in crime. High-ranking military leaders have also stressed the importance of quality early education as a national security issue. Today 75 percent of Americans age 17 to 24 are ineligible for military service due to poor education, physical un- fitness, or involvement with crime. Quality early learning helps kids get on the right path--before they fall behind.

Parents know the high cost of child care is difficult to afford. If parents can't find child care, they can't go to work. Parents also want more than just supervision for their children. They want to know their children are being engaged by effective teachers who are preparing them academically, socially, and emotionally for success in school.

Teachers and school administrators know firsthand that their students who come to kindergarten with quality preschool are more likely to succeed. Special education professionals and advocates for students with disabilities know that quality early learning can identify disabilities early and bring intervention to get kids on track with their peers.

Education is the great equalizer, and starting children on an early path to success is critical. I have been working to strengthen quality early education for over a decade. As Lieutenant Governor, I helped establish Hawaii's Pre-Plus program, which constructed preschool classrooms for use by nonprofit, private, or public preschools. In the U.S. House of Representatives, I first introduced the PRE-K Act in 2007. The

bill passed through the House Education and Labor Committee with a bipartisan vote. President Obama has made quality early learning a key part of his education platform. I helped lead a coalition of over 100 bipartisan House members to enact and fund President Obama's Early Learning Challenge. We also fought for increases in Head Start and Child Care subsidies to serve more children and families.

In his 2013 State of the Union address, President Obama called for new Federal support for high-quality state preschool. This is the first time in a generation that a president has used the State of the Union address to call for expanding preschool access. The PRE-K Act answers this call.

The time is right. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House and Senate to move this forward.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Providing Resources Early for Kids Act of 2013--the PRE-K Act.

Research shows that quality early education is foundational for success in school and in life.

The PRE-K Act will help more children enter school ready to succeed. It creates a new federal-state partnership to provide better preschool opportunities for our country's children. High quality preschool makes the biggest difference, so this bill focuses on quality.

The PRE-K Act would provide Federal grants to States to strengthen quality. States could use the funding to increase the number of highly trained early educators in preschool classrooms.

The bill would improve the student-to-teacher ratios in preschools; provide vital comprehensive services such as health screenings and nutritional assistance.

The bill would increase the hours per day and weeks per year families have access to high quality early education programs; and improve programs for our youngest children, from birth to three years old.

States would need to coordinate with existing Head Start providers and their State Advisory Councils.

The PRE-K Act recognizes that not all states have a high-quality state preschool program in place yet. This bill meets states where they are. States that already have a high-quality program could apply as ``Qualified States'' and get money improve quality and expand to serve more children. Other States, like Hawaii, could apply as ``Selected States,'' earning Federal grants to establish a high-quality preschool program within two years.

In Hawaii, Governor Abercrombie is leading the fight to build a State preschool program for low-income families. The PRE-K Act could support Hawaii's efforts through Federal partnership grants.

Decades of research show that high quality early education programs can help kids enter kindergarten ready to learn and avoid falling behind. Later in life, kids who have high-quality preschool are more likely to avoid crime or teen pregnancy, graduate high school and college, earn more income, pay taxes, and need fewer public services.

The studies have found that investing $1 in quality early learning can bring a return on investment of between $2 and $17 down the line. A University of Hawaii/Good Beginnings Alliance study of a theoretical Hawaii program found we'd get $4.20 for every $1 invested. In this tight fiscal environment, wise Federal spending is key. High quality early learning is one of the best investments we can make.

That is why business and financial leaders, from the Hawaii Business Roundtable to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, agree that quality early education is critically important in providing the tools children need for success in school and in adulthood.

Law enforcement officials know that quality early learning helps prevent kids from falling behind, dropping out of high school, or getting involved in crime. High-ranking military leaders have also stressed the importance of quality early education as a national security issue. Today 75 percent of Americans age 17 to 24 are ineligible for military service due to poor education, physical un- fitness, or involvement with crime. Quality early learning helps kids get on the right path--before they fall behind.

Parents know the high cost of child care is difficult to afford. If parents can't find child care, they can't go to work. Parents also want more than just supervision for their children. They want to know their children are being engaged by effective teachers who are preparing them academically, socially, and emotionally for success in school.

Teachers and school administrators know firsthand that their students who come to kindergarten with quality preschool are more likely to succeed. Special education professionals and advocates for students with disabilities know that quality early learning can identify disabilities early and bring intervention to get kids on track with their peers.

Education is the great equalizer, and starting children on an early path to success is critical. I have been working to strengthen quality early education for over a decade. As Lieutenant Governor, I helped establish Hawaii's Pre-Plus program, which constructed preschool classrooms for use by nonprofit, private, or public preschools. In the U.S. House of Representatives, I first introduced the PRE-K Act in 2007. The

bill passed through the House Education and Labor Committee with a bipartisan vote. President Obama has made quality early learning a key part of his education platform. I helped lead a coalition of over 100 bipartisan House members to enact and fund President Obama's Early Learning Challenge. We also fought for increases in Head Start and Child Care subsidies to serve more children and families.

In his 2013 State of the Union address, President Obama called for new Federal support for high-quality state preschool. This is the first time in a generation that a president has used the State of the Union address to call for expanding preschool access. The PRE-K Act answers this call.

The time is right. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House and Senate to move this forward.

Madam President, I am in support of S. 47, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013. I am a cosponsor of this bill and look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important piece of legislation.

The grants created by this act have helped ensure services to domestic violence victims since 1994. VAWA has helped raise public awareness on an issue that too often went unreported and ignored under the guise of politeness and privacy by family, friends, and neighbors.

Yet, while VAWA has raised awareness, increased reporting, and provided victims of domestic violence and similar crimes with better services and protection against perpetrators, there is still much work to be done to eliminate these crimes. Specifically, I am concerned about the high instances of domestic violence in Indian Country. I am pleased that S. 47 includes language to provide tribal governments the force they need to prosecute non-Indian perpetrators who commit these crimes on tribal land. There is no reason a non-Indian perpetrator should go unpunished because a tribe lacked jurisdiction over him or her, and it is especially egregious that in such cases, the perpetrator may go unpunished for crimes committed on tribal land. Every citizen of this Nation deserves the safety and security that comes with a peaceful home and safe relationship.

Indeed, I believe noncitizen immigrants who have moved to this country and found themselves trapped in an unsafe relationship or family setting also deserve the protections provided by VAWA. S. 47 provides the types of protections necessary to assist law enforcement in prosecuting crimes that might otherwise have gone unreported by immigrants fearful of losing their status.

I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting S. 47 and will work to make the bill and the services and protections it provides as strong as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, my State of Hawaii and our Nation lost a truly great man, Senator Daniel K. Inouye. He began serving our country when he was only 17 years old, joining the Army after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

At that time, many questioned the patriotism of people who looked like him, but for Senator Inouye that was precisely why he joined the service. He was a true patriot. He loved this country and was willing to do whatever he could to defend it. In fact, he lost his arm charging a series of machine gun nests on a hill on San Terenzo, Italy, on April 21, 1945. His heroic actions rightly earned him the Medal of Honor.

He was the embodiment of the Greatest Generation: courage, sacrifice, humility, and love of country. It's why the commitment to serve and protect those who fight for our country has always been one he took personally. It's why he always stood up for the ideals of freedom and justice that our country is founded upon, because he saw firsthand what happens when we don't. And it's why he was always proud to stand up for our heritage in Hawaii.

The truth is, Senator Inouye deeply loved our beautiful State of Hawaii. Half a century ago, he had a vision of the Hawaii we inherit from him today. Over his many decades of service, he displayed a builder's skill, pouring the foundation of the modern and vibrant Hawaii that is his legacy. And so the greatest tribute we can pay Senator Inouye is to acquire his vision, apply his skills, and build on the remarkable foundation he laid for us, from strengthening our schools and university to building our roads and bridges.

And just today, our State marked another milestone led by Senator Inouye. We signed a full funding grant agreement with the U.S. Government for our Oahu rail project. This was a project championed by Senator Inouye through many years, through many ups and downs.

The Senator saw the future of Hawaii often before others did; and when he saw something that was going to better the lives of the people in Hawaii, he always fought for it. This is probably one of the things he will be remembered for the most, his tenacity in fighting for the people of Hawaii and for doing what is right.

And while he may have been a fierce competitor, he was always a gentle spirit. In a Washington that, at times, is so torn apart by partisanship, Dan Inouye always worked to defuse that situation and bring us together. He understood that words mattered as much as actions, and he always worked to elevate the debate.

And he stood by his friends, no matter their political stripes. It's why we've all heard from people on both sides of the aisle, and some who are speaking today, who are so saddened by his death by what our country lost this week.

I received a message from our good friend and brother, Eni Faleomavaega from American Samoa. He is traveling overseas and asked that I mention his deep condolences to the people of Hawaii.

Eni, like so many, calls Senator Inouye a mentor. He taught us all lessons we'll never forget. Simply put, Senator Inouye was an extraordinary

person, a giant in the Senate, who accomplished so much for the people of Hawaii and our Nation. It is now up to us to carry on that work, to realize his vision, to draw upon his strength, his strength of purpose and strength of character, to do what is right.

I know the people of Hawaii join me today in pledging to do just that.

Aloha, Senator Inouye.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 839.

I would now like to yield as much time as he consumes to my colleague from the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, Kilili Sablan.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield such time as he may consume to my good friend from Alaska, Congressman Don Young.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to my friend from California, Congresswoman Doris Matsui.

I would now like to yield such time as she may consume to my friend from California (Ms. Chu).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield such time as she may consume to my friend and colleague from Hawaii, Congresswoman Hanabusa.

I now yield such time as he may consume to my good friend from California, Congressman Mike Honda.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of my colleagues who came to the floor tonight to share their experiences and thoughts about Senator Inouye, as well as all my other colleagues who express their condolences to Irene Hirano Inouye, his wife; his son, Ken; his daughter-in-law; his granddaughter, Maggie; and all those who have expressed and shared their experiences with Senator Inouye.

This is a man who touched so many lives, not just in Hawaii, but all across the country. And we all know at this point what a great Senator he was and all of the good works that he did, but at a time like this, we often hear from just individuals who want to share their very human stories about individual kindnesses that he showed. In fact, one of my colleagues today said, Did you know that I was at a function where it was raining, and he held an umbrella over my head with his one good arm for an hour? Or how much he cared about the Hansen's disease patients in Kalaupapa, and he invited them to Oahu to meet with the Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood, so that the Secretary could hear from these residents who often did not get to travel very much, who could share with the Secretary their own concerns and to ask for his help, and they were helped.

So it is always a human dimension to what Senator Inouye did that always struck me, and he did so in a very quiet way. So we honor him, we thank him, and his last word before he passed on was, ``Aloha.''

Senator, we bid you aloha. We love you. Aloha.

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

I stand here today to give tribute to my friend, Hawaii's senior Senator--our country's senior Senator--Daniel K. Inouye. With your passing, my friend, I want to tell you that no one can fill your shoes.

In Hawaii, we jokingly say that there are three economic drivers in our State: tourism, defense, and Senator Inouye. And it's true. His work and his unselfishness in serving his State and country are unparalleled.

He served our country during war at a time when people who looked like him were not considered American citizens. He did it and served our country honorably and with respect and with incredible strength and character. He did it because he believed in what our country should and could be. Our country--great; our country--about service; our country-- about our children and our future; our country--honorable. His personal legacy in my home State of Hawaii could and will never be matched. Never.

Hawaii, we will never be able to thank Senator Inouye for his service and what he has done for us. It is too great to put into words, and it cannot be done in a 5-minute tribute.

But what I want to give my aloha and thanks to Senator Inouye for, is bigger than all of us: for his commitment to serve and protect our brave men and women who fight for our country, for his dedication and willingness to work in a bipartisan fashion, for standing up for the ideals of freedom and justice that our country is founded upon, for always standing up for our proud heritage in Hawaii.

Senator Inouye was, as so many have recognized, a genuine patriot, a uniquely proud American, and a man and a leader always true to his word. But Senator Inouye was also an architect and a builder. Half a century ago, he had an architect's vision of the Hawaii we inherit from him today. Over his many decades of service, he displayed a builder's skill--pouring the foundation of the modern and vibrant Hawaii that we inherit from him today. That is his legacy.

So the greatest tribute we can pay Senator Inouye is to acquire his vision, to apply his skills and build on the remarkable foundation he laid for us.

I know this is the tribute that I will pay to my friend. I know this is the tribute that the people of Hawaii will pay to Senator Inouye. Hawaii drew incredible strength from the life and service of Dan Inouye, and it is that very strength--strength of purpose and strength of character--that will keep Hawaii and our country strong for years to come.

The Senator Inouye I knew and loved, and that we all loved and respected, would expect this of Hawaii and us, and we will not let him down.

Our country joins the people of Newtown in their grief and loss.

Tonight, we also mourn the sudden passing of our friend and patriot, Senator Inouye of Hawaii. Senator Inouye loved his family. Our thoughts and prayers are with Irene, Ken, Jessica, and little Maggie. Our sympathies also to his hardworking staff.

Senator Inouye loved Hawaii, and his work on behalf of Hawaii is legendary. There is no one person who did more to ensure Hawaii's future than Senator Inouye. He loved his country and received the Medal of Honor in her service.

Senator Inouye never forgot where he came from. And I'm proud to say that I represented his dear mother, Kame Inouye, in 1980 when I first ran for the State legislature. I'm proud to count Senator Inouye as my friend since that time. We can best honor Senator Inouye's legacy by continuing to be strong for Hawaii and our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution commemorating the remarkable life of service of Mother Marianne Cope of Molokai, and her canonization as a saint of the Roman Catholic Church on October 21, 2012. She joins Saint Damien of Molokai among the 12 American saints.

I am joined in introducing this resolution by Congresswoman Ann Marie Buerkle, who represents Syracuse, New York, where Mother Marianne's Order of the Sisters of Saint Francis is based; by Congressman Richard Hanna, who represents Utica, New York, where Mother Marianne grew up; and by Congresswoman Colleen Hanabusa, who represents Hawaii's First Congressional District. I am proud to represent Hawaii's Second Congressional District, which includes the island of Molokai.

It may seem surprising that one-sixth of America's saints are connected to the tiny Kalaupapa Peninsula on the Hawaiian island of Molokai. The story of Kalaupapa is heartbreaking.

We have all heard of how isolated native populations are especially susceptible to new diseases. Once Westerners and other peoples came to Hawaii, diseases like smallpox and measles caused high mortality. It was no different with leprosy. Native Hawaiians made up the majority of those afflicted with this disease.

To stem the spread of leprosy, the Kingdom of Hawaii decided in 1866 to forcibly relocate persons found to have the disease to the Kalaupapa Peninsula. Those with the disease were outcasts in every sense of the word. Kalaupapa was chosen because it is surrounded by the ocean and some of the tallest sea cliffs in the world, effectively cutting off escape.

Mothers, fathers, and children who contracted the disease were taken from their families and brought to Kalaupapa, where living conditions were terrible and medical care almost nonexistent. Father Damien, who ultimately contracted and died from the disease, is recognized throughout the world for all he did to improve conditions for the outcasts of Kalaupapa. Mother Marianne carried on and expanded on his work. This resolution honors Mother Marianne for her legacy of compassionate care and recognizes her example of what it truly means to dedicate one's life in service to others. One does not need to be Catholic to be humbled and inspired by the life of someone who devoted herself so selflessly to those whom almost everyone else shunned and rejected.

Mother Marianne, born Barbara Koob, immigrated to this country from Germany as a young girl. She and her family settled in Utica, New York. At the age of 24, she entered the religious life as a Catholic nun and commenced a life dedicated to children, education, and the sick. Mother Marianne later focused her efforts on health care and was influential in establishing St. Elizabeth Hospital in Utica. She was also

the founder and administrator of St. Joseph's Hospital in Syracuse, the city's first hospital.

In 1883, Mother Marianne received a letter that would change her life. It was from Father Leonor Fouesnel, a missionary in Hawaii, who was desperately searching for volunteers to take charge of the hospitals that served people with Hansen's disease. More than 50 religious congregations had already declined, but Mother Marianne was different. She eagerly accepted the mission. She wrote back to Father Leonor:

I am hungry for the work and I wish with all my heart to be

one of the chosen ones. I am not afraid of any disease.

Mother Marianne left for Hawaii, along with six sisters from Syracuse, in 1883, where she began a 30-year mission caring for those diagnosed with Hansen's disease. Mother Marianne accepted a government plea to start a new home for women and girls with Hansen's disease at the Kalaupapa settlement. Mother Marianne arrived in Kalaupapa just months before Father Damien's death. She oversaw the expansion of health services and programs to provide education and tend to the spiritual needs of the patients.

Mother Marianne lived until the age of 80. On August 9, 1918, she died in Kalaupapa. She was deeply mourned and is still revered. I have visited her grave site, where I left ho-okupu, a traditional Hawaiian offering. I was deeply moved by the devotion of this woman from New York who left all that was familiar to live on an isolated peninsula 5,000 miles from home. Kalaupapa became her home and its people her family.

Mother Marianne recognized the rights and inherent dignity of all people. She dedicated her life to caring for those who needed it the most. People of all faiths can admire her spirit of aloha--encompassing love, compassion, mercy, and grace--and malama--to care for others.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong solidarity with the people of Israel and in support of its right, as any sovereign nation, to defend its citizens against rocket attacks from Hamas, a terrorist organization dedicated to Israel's destruction. The rocket attacks launched from the Hamas-controlled Gaza strip earlier this month against civilian targets in Israel, including Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, continued a reign of terror that includes over 800 rocket attacks this year alone.

Several years ago, I traveled to Israel. It was clear that the constant threat of violence was a harsh reality of everyday life. Israel's efforts to eliminate this threat to her people, stop these attacks by Hamas, and destroy stockpiles of missiles must be viewed in this context. We grieve for the innocent civilians--Israeli and Palestinian alike--who have lost their lives in this tragedy. We appeal to Hamas to honor the ceasefire it agreed to on November 21, 2012; adhere to its terms; and stop storing and using its weapons among a civilian population, putting their lives in grave danger.

We also appeal for peace, and we hope those countries in the region that can help end the conflict will continue to work with us to do so. Our goal is a world where a Palestinian state and a Jewish state of Israel live side by side in peace and security. It can only happen when the Palestinian people enforce a peace that stops attacks on Israel, keeps their commitments, and acknowledges Israel's right to exist.

America stands firmly behind our friend and ally Israel; Hamas must permanently end its aerial assault against Israeli civilians and its allies must cease supplying these weapons of terror.

Madam Speaker, I support H.R. 6156, the Russia and Moldova Jackson-Vanik Repeal Act of 2012, with some reservations. Russia became a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in August of this year. If the United States is to benefit from the non- discriminatory treatment of goods and services required by Russia's membership in the WTO, we must grant permanent normal trade relations with Russia. The WTO provides a forum and process for requiring Russia to comply with its trade obligations.

Russia is currently the United States' 20th largest trade partner. My concern is that Russia might not live up to its trade commitments and here enforcement is key. This bill does have provisions that will strengthen our ability to make sure Russia complies with its obligations and directs the U.S. Trade Representative to pay special attention to Russia's compliance. Congress also has a role; we must exercise robust oversight to ensure that Russia lives up to its obligations and that we use all the enforcement mechanisms available to us.

I am also supporting and have cosponsored H.R. 6149, which would further strengthen requirements on the U.S. Trade Representative to monitor and pursue enforcement of Russian commitments under the WTO.

I am also supporting this bill because it includes the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act, which strengthens the ability of the U.S. government to hold Russian nationals who have engaged in human rights violations accountable for their crimes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6429, the misnamed STEM Jobs Act of 2012.

The ability our nation to attract the world's best and brightest has contributed greatly to the creation of American jobs and the success of American businesses large and small. However, many foreign students who graduate from our best universities in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields become victims of a broken visa system. The absence of specific visas for graduates in these critical fields has resulted in long wait times and forces many to move back home, taking their valuable skills out of the American economy. Clearly, the time has come for change.

Unfortunately, H.R. 6429 isn't the change we need. It follows the pattern of the Republicans' approach of giving with one hand while taking with the other. This bill would create STEM visas at the expense of eliminating the Diversity Visa Program. Diversity visas provide a legal path for people from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States. Half the recipients are from Africa and almost a third are from Asia.

Democrats and Republicans agree that we should establish a STEM visa program, but unfortunately Republicans inserted a poison pill in this bill that guarantees it will not pass. It is also clear that the Senate will not take up the bill with this provision included.

We in Hawaii know that diversity is a strength. Hawaii has been enriched by the diverse immigrants who call it home, hailing from places like the Philippines, Japan, Samoa, Portugal, and around the Pacific Rim. While I believe we should be looking for ways to encourage the best and brightest to come to our shores and create American jobs, we don't need to do it at the expense of the Diversity Visa Program.

As an immigrant, I know the promise America offers and the hopes of those who come to our shores seeking a better life. That's why I support efforts to improve our immigration system and encourage those with needed skills to come and work for our businesses. Furthermore, a strong economic foundation depends on a world class American education system that prepares the young people of our country to compete in the STEM fields. I am convinced we can find a way to come together to create a fair STEM Visa Program and to strengthen our STEM education so more Americans can get these jobs.

H.R. 6429 is a flawed bill, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. Chair, last week the House considered H.R. 4078, the Regulatory Freeze for Jobs Act. Like the REINS Act and other similar legislation this chamber has considered--and I have opposed--the Regulatory Freeze for Jobs Act (H.R. 4078) would prevent federal agencies from developing and implementing regulations that protect public health, consumers, and our environment.

One of the majority's primary arguments for this bill is that regulations kill jobs by making it hard for businesses to do what they need to do to succeed. In the current economy, this sounds plausible. Unfortunately, the facts and data do not support this claim.

Since 2007 the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has asked businesses that have laid off large numbers of workers what caused them to make such layoffs. According to the BLS's survey data government regulations contributed to only 0.2 percent of layoffs in 2009, 2010 and through the first half of 2011.

Instead, the BLS found that the number one reason companies made mass layoffs was because of reduced demand for their products or services from consumers.

Surveys conducted by the American Sustainable Business Council, the Main Street Alliance, and the Small Business Majority also found that lack of demand is the primary challenge facing businesses today--not regulations.

One of the other arguments the majority has advanced to support their claim that regulations hurt the economy is that there will be ``unintended consequences.'' Again, this sounds plausible given the state of our economy. But again, this assertion does not hold up against the facts.

Take, for example, the Clean Air Act and the regulations that resulted from the law. In 1990, Congress passed the Clean Air Act Amendments on a strong bipartisan basis. Despite concerns raised by industry over the cost of the rules mandated by the law, the decade following its enactment was a great time U.S. businesses. The economy created 21 million jobs, and we had the longest period of sustained economic growth in national history.

In fact, since passage of the initial Clean Air Act over 40 years ago, our economy has grown by over 200 percent. At the same time, we have improved the nation's air quality and the health of the American people by reducing toxic and health threatening air pollutants by 60 percent. The estimated economic benefits

from lower health care costs, less illness and premature death, and increased worker productivity of the Clean Air Act are expected to reach the $2 trillion mark in 2020. This exceeds the projected costs of implementing the regulations by more than 30 to 1.

We can also look at the recent financial crisis as a cautionary tale of the ``unintended consequences'' of not having appropriate safeguards put in place.

In 1994 Congress gave the Federal Reserve authority to regulate subprime and other high risk mortgages. It took them until 2008 to do anything with that authority. Unfortunately, 2008 was too late to prevent the housing bubble that popped and set off a financial crisis that cost American families $6.5 trillion in household wealth, millions of jobs, and required significant resources from the federal government to address.

Even former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan admitted to the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee in 2008 that he'd been wrong about the housing bubble and should have done more.

These stories illustrate the importance of responsible environmental and consumer protections to a strong economy, strong communities, and healthy families. Yet none of this information or experience seems to have had any impact on the majority.

In fact, the bill today would likely delay regulations like the mercury and air toxics rule. According to estimates, each year that we delay implementing this rule means 17,000 premature deaths, 120,000 cases of asthma, 12,200 hospital and emergency room visits for respiratory and cardiovascular disease, and 850,000 days of missed work and school due to illness.

In addition, every year approximately 1.2 million people get sick, 7,125 people are hospitalized, and 134 people die from foodborne illnesses attributed to contaminated produce. Enacting this bill would halt progress on implementing the Food Safety Modernization Act to reduce these contaminations and protect our families.

The Regulatory Freeze for Jobs Act would arbitrarily freeze all regulations until unemployment is below 6 percent, prevent regulations from being developed and implemented during presidential transitions, expose regulations to court challenges that will increase uncertainty, and make other changes to procedures for developing and implementing regulations.

These changes would primarily accomplish one thing--undermining the government's ability to do its job efficiently and cost effectively.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that these changes would freeze routine updates to programs like payment rates for services to Medicare patients. This would have a negative impact on doctors and seniors.

CBO also estimates that the legislation ``would have a significant effect on direct spending'' because laws could not be implemented properly--unnecessarily increasing the deficit.

H.R. 4078 would also give regulated industries the ability to influence rules behind closed doors by requiring that agencies consult with private industry stakeholders before proposed rules are made available for public comment. The changes made under this bill would also allow regulations to be challenged and delayed, increasing uncertainty for businesses and the economy--which seems to run counter to the majority's primary argument for the bill in the first place.

This bill also ignores the work that the Obama Administration has been engaged in to review current regulations in order to eliminate outdated, obsolete, and ineffective rules. The President placed a premium on getting feedback on this effort from the public--including the business community. As a result paperwork burdens, unnecessary or outdated rules, and barriers to exporting and other job creating activities have been or will be eliminated. These changes are projected to save taxpayers billions in the coming years.

Now is not the time to put the brakes on this effort, which has been open, transparent and appropriately balances the need for responsible safeguards for consumers, the environment, and public health with the need for a strong and growing economy.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose H.R. 3803, yet another assault on women's personal decision making.

In Hawaii, people tell me we should be talking about jobs and working together to get the economy moving. Instead, the House Republican Majority continues its assault on women. Debating divisive social issues isn't going to help our economy or create one single job.

A woman's right to choose is a fundamental freedom--there is no place for politicians in individuals' private medical decisions.

H.R. 3803 restricts access to abortions in the District of Columbia after 20 weeks, regardless of who pays for the procedure. The bill wouldn't even allow for abortion in the case of rape or incest, makes no exception for a woman's health, and would require a woman to carry a nonviable fetus to term.

A woman shouldn't need to ask a politician for permission to make private medical decisions. H.R. 3803 would let politicians tell women what to do.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and get to work on the real issues people in Hawaii are most concerned about right now, creating jobs and moving our economy forward.

Mr. Chair, I oppose H.R. 6082, the Congressional Replacement of President Obama's Energy-Restricting and Job-Limiting Offshore Drilling Plan.

This is the current Majority's 12th giveaway for Big Oil in the last 18 months. I've consistently opposed these prior 11 measures on the House floor. The Senate has failed to pass any of the prior bills, and President Obama has consistently stated his intention to veto those measures.

The majority claims that this bill is about lowering energy prices and creating jobs.

Let's be clear--this is a bill against President Obama's offshore drilling plan.

Today, more than 75 percent of the offshore oil and gas resources are available for drilling under that plan. We have 50 percent more floating drilling rigs operating in the Gulf of Mexico than we did prior to the BP spill and have more total rigs operating in the United States than does the rest of the world combined. Domestic oil production is at an 18 year high and oil and gas companies continue to enjoy substantial profits--all on top of tax breaks totaling over $4 billion per year. In addition, this year the U.S. became a net exporter of oil for the first time since 1949.

My home state of Hawaii relies on imported oil from both foreign and U.S. sources for 90 percent of our primary energy. We use oil to generate our electricity and to fuel our vehicles. We also pay three times the average price that the mainland pays for that electricity and our gas prices are constantly the highest in the nation--despite all of the drilling that is currently happening.

That's why this attack on President Obama's comprehensive approach to energy--producing more oil and boosting clean energy--is especially troubling.

It's also troubling that the majority seem to be consciously ignoring key safety recommendations and preventing proper environmental reviews.

We all remember April 20, 2010. That is the date that the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded. This accident killed 11 crew members and injured numerous others. Over 4 million barrels of oil gushed into the Gulf of Mexico, and the spill could not be contained for almost 3 months.

In response President Obama created the bipartisan National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling. The commission concluded that if more effective oversight of safety and environmental protection had been conducted--by both the government and the industry itself--the disaster could have been avoided. The commission then made a series of recommendations to prevent another spill from occurring.

Representative Markey introduced these recommendations as legislation in January of 2011. I'm proud to be a cosponsor of this bill, H.R. 501. However, I'm disappointed that there has not even been a committee hearing on this important legislation.

That's not all. On July 24, 2012, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board released a report which found that at the time of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon blowout, BP and other companies involved in that accident had failed to implement safety recommendations made by the Board in 2007.

The 2007 recommendations stemmed from the investigation of a March 2005 explosion at BP's Texas City Refinery.

These are real disasters with real consequences for workers and communities.

At the same time, the facts and record are clear: These disasters are preventable and Congress can and should do something to address them.

The bill also undermines a series of laws intended to ensure that we are good stewards of our natural resources--including the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and Clean Water Act. Ensuring compliance with these laws protects public health, communities, and the environment. These environmental reviews are also necessary to avoid costly and time- consuming litigation for all parties.

More than that, this is a matter of ensuring that the resources we have can be utilized responsibly to support jobs and economic growth in industries other than drilling, like tourism for example.

The bill also opens huge areas on the East Coast, stretching from Maine to South Carolina, off of Southern California, in the Alaska Arctic and in the area around the important fishery of Bristol Bay off Alaska. Opening these areas ignores concerns raised by nearly every stakeholder other than oil and gas companies.

These include significant issues raised by states and local communities, concerns about important fishing areas, and even concerns raised by our military will go unheeded if this bill were to become law.

Finally, H.R. 6082 would require that the Department of Interior conduct a single multi-sale Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Atlantic, Pacific and Bristol Bay. Combined EIS documents are usually done for lease sales in areas where the conditions are well known and similar. However, these are three wildly different environments that merit their own considerations.

Just to be clear, those who stand to lose under this bill include: states, localities, fisherman, the military, average citizens and small businesses that currently rely on these areas for recreation, tourism, and other purposes.

The winners under this bill: the oil and gas drilling industry.

Hawaii is a case study for why we must end our reliance on fossil fuels and work harder to support the development of a broad range of clean, renewable, locally-produced fuels. Drilling more won't decrease the global competition for oil, and it won't do anything to reduce energy prices in the long-term. High energy prices act as a tax on all of us and an anchor on our economy, so if we are truly going to have the most competitive economy in the 21st century we need to develop affordable alternatives. Developing these alternatives will give the U.S. the upper hand both in terms of costs to our economy, and in developing new industries that can create jobs for the next century.

Instead, the bill before us keeps us on the same path of dependence we've been on. This bill is a failure for our economy in the long term, fails to address the safety reforms for offshore drilling that numerous experts have advocated for, and seeks to give oil companies another windfall without ensuring that they are paying their fair share to drill on public lands.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this terribly shortsighted and ill- advised legislation.