Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Ko`olaupoko Hawaiian Civic Club on the 75th anniversary of its founding and to recognize its impressive contributions to the preservation and perpetuation of Native Hawaiian culture. Ko`olaupoko Hawaiian Civic Club has a distinguished record of service to the ahupua`a of Kane`ohe, Heaeia, Kahalu`u, Waihe`e, Ka`alaea, Waihole, Waikane, Hakipu`u, and Kualoa on the windward side of the island of O`ahu. The civic club, along with community and other local partners in Hawaii, has planned a year-long celebration featuring the musical, natural, and cultural heritage of O`ahu's windward coast.

Our civic clubs have played an important role in the history of Hawaii, dating back to the first Hawaiian civic club founded in 1918 by Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalanian`ole. He was a stalwart figure in Hawaiian history, a tireless advocate for the Hawaiian people and served in this very chamber as Hawaii's delegate to Congress from 1902 to 1922. Carrying on Prince Kuhio's legacy and strong belief in civic duty and grassroots activism, more than sixty Hawaiian civic clubs have been established in Hawaii and the continental United States. These clubs proudly keep Hawaiian traditions, language, and culture alive and work to improve the conditions of the Native Hawaiian people and our island communities.

Founded by community leaders George Ke`ehukulani Cypher, Johnny Townsend, Isaac Kanakanui, and Solomon Halualani, as well as renowned hula master Kau`i Zuttermeister and Honolulu City Planner George Houghtailing, the Ko`olaupoko Hawaiian Civic Club, has taken its core value of malama--or to take care--to heart. Through its efforts to maintain ancient heiau (sacred Hawaiian religious sites), restore threatened wetlands, provide annual scholarships for Native Hawaiian students, and many other initiatives, the Ko`olaupoko Civic Club continues to support the culture and heritage of Native Hawaiians. It's only fitting that the club was awarded the Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalanian`ole Award as the ``most outstanding Hawaiian Civic Club'' at the Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs' 2011 Convention.

Congratulations to the members of the Ko`olaupoko Hawaiian Civic Club for all their accomplishments, their dedication to the betterment of our community and continuing the civic clubs' heritage of service.

Mahalo nui loa (thank you very much).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Senate Amendment to H.R. 3630, the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011.

Unfortunately, this isn't the legislation we will be voting on today. The Majority has decided to side-step that bill, which passed the Senate this weekend on a bipartisan 89-10 vote.

Instead, the House Majority's aim is to reopen negotiations in an attempt to force the Senate to include in the bill many poison pill provisions, like requiring a high school diploma to receive unemployment benefits.

President Obama has said that the Senate's compromise bill is ``the only viable way to prevent a tax hike on January 1.''

The legislation the Senate passed this weekend, and that we should be considering today, would provide for a two-month extension of several measures that will help keep our economy moving in the right direction. These include extending unemployment benefits, the payroll tax cut, the temporary assistance for needy families (TANF) program, and preserving the rate of Medicare payments to doctors.

Let me be clear Mr. Speaker, the Senate bill is a modest proposal at best. However, extending these vital measures are necessary to keep our economy moving forward and growing.

Failure to reach agreement is unacceptable. If we fail to pass the Senate bill, 700,000 workers in Hawaii will see their paychecks shrink and taxes increase in January. Nearly 3,000 people in Hawaii will lose their unemployment benefits in January. Some 27,000 Hawaii families will lose access to assistance that helps feed their children while they seek new jobs. And we will unnecessarily be making it harder for doctors to provide the care our seniors deserve.

Failing to extend the payroll tax and unemployment benefits wouldn't just be irresponsible for workers and families--it would actually do serious damage to our nation's economic growth.

In fact, independent economists forecast that failing to extend these two measures could cost 1.3 million jobs.

Of course, the Senate's legislation is far from perfect. I regret that we were unable to reach an agreement that would have extended these measures for the entire year.

I also regret the House Majority's insistence on attempting to tie these vital provisions to unnecessary and controversial ones.

I am glad the Senate has sent us a bill that removes some of the most offensive poison pills--like slashing extended unemployment benefits to 40 weeks and ridiculous and probably unconstitutional changes to eligibility requirements for those benefits--that passed the House last week.

Despite these changes the Senate bill is very much a compromise. It still includes a provision that would unnecessarily rush the Administration's review and approval of the controversial 1,700 mile long Keystone XL pipeline project.

I fail to see the benefit of rushing this decision. The President has committed to ensuring that the State Department conducts a thorough review of this project in order to determine the economic, environmental, and public health impact it could have on our nation.

This is particularly prudent because the proposed route runs from Canada to the Gulf Coast--directly through the center of our nation. Its proposed route passes through the sensitive Sand Hills in Nebraska and over the Ogallala aquifer. This aquifer provides 30 percent of all groundwater used for irrigation in the U.S., as well as drinking water for millions of Americans.

The State Department has indicated that the earliest these necessary reviews will be completed is 2013. Expediting this review process is short-sighted, unwise, and could have serious negative implications for future generations and media reports indicate that the Administration will not approve the project under this tight timeline.

So despite this troublesome provision, I had intended to support the Senate's bill.

The Majority's attempt to renegotiate this entire package is a waste of time. We should come together to extend the relief that our workers and their families deserve and return next year with a new focus on how to move our economy forward.

With the holidays just days away, we owe families in Hawaii and the American people at least that much.

Mr Speaker, I voted for the final version of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act because passage of this bill is important to the servicemen and women of our country and their families. The bill provides an average 1.6 percent pay increase for our troops and ensures that TRICARE premiums for military retirees will not be higher than the rate of increase in the cost-of-living.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what's the matter with us when we don't learn from history.

After the Great Depression, we passed the Social Security Act. Two major components: One is to keep our seniors safe in their years of retirement, and the second, to provide for those who may become unemployed through no fault of their own.

The bill that we're being asked to vote on today is going to cut unemployment, cut unemployment, the extended portion, which people have come to rely on for those who are looking for work and can't get it, and we're cutting the emergency portion of it as well by eliminating tiers.

But, Mr. Speaker, more than anything else, the part that just bothers me and forces me to speak is that we are going to make people qualify for unemployment. They've got to have a high school diploma or a GED equivalent.

Mr. Speaker, my father went to the ninth grade. He worked through his whole life. Imagine someone like him, and there are many people like my father, that will not qualify for unemployment, will not qualify because they didn't have a high school diploma.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to express strong opposition to legislation this chamber passed yesterday, H.R. 10, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act of 2011.

The REINS Act requires that both chambers of Congress pass a resolution approving every regulation with an economic impact of $100 million or more. If Congress fails to pass such a resolution, that regulation would not take effect, and the law would go unimplemented.

I oppose this legislation, which would hurt the health, safety, and well-being of my constituents and Hawaii's communities. We cannot let our constituents and communities down when it comes to these vital responsibilities.

For example, this bill would stop the rules that are being written now to implement the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act-- which will rein in reckless behavior in financial markets. Important rules to implement the health care law--which is already lowering drug costs for seniors--would also be stopped. And rules relating to the recent food safety legislation and protecting clean air and water would be stopped.

These rules--and the laws they are implementing--were and are opposed by various powerful corporate special interests. Those special interests know they don't have the votes to repeal these laws--and they know the American people don't want them repealed.

So instead, corporate special interests and their allies claim that the costs of these types of rules are too big to be worth it.

They're wrong.

Even the Bush Administration recognized that the benefits of rules like these outweigh their costs. In fact, in 2008, the Office of Management and Budget--which must sign off on all major rules developed by federal agencies--estimated that costs to the economy for major rules it approved were between $46 billion and $54 billion. These costs were far outweighed by the benefits of those same regulations, which they estimated to be between $122 billion and $656 billion. Imagine if the rules that are being written to implement Wall Street Reform had been on the books in 2005, before the financial crisis came to a head?

I believe our country could have reined in rampant, out of control behavior of Wall Street, and such regulations could have saved our economy trillions of dollars in lost economic growth and hard-earned retirement and college savings. Millions of people who have lost jobs could still be working. And this body could be focused on matters like improving U.S. education, economic competitiveness, and reducing our deficit.

Not only would this bill halt our regulatory system in its tracks, but it is also unnecessary. The Congressional Review Act already gives Congress the ability to review and disapprove of regulations if they are contrary to Congressional intent. This system ensures that the laws enacted by Congress are implemented appropriately, while preventing the law and its implementation from being hijacked by special interests on a whim--and creating disruptive uncertainty for our economy and legal system.

Mr. Speaker, people in Hawaii are tired of these politically motivated bills. They want the federal government to get to work helping to create jobs, protecting health and safety, and to do so responsibly.

The REINS Act also fails miserably on that front. This legislation would require federal agencies to conduct the rigorous analysis required to develop a rule--a process that can take several years--only to have that rule stopped by Congress. This is a waste of federal resources and irresponsible at a time when Congress needs to focus on creating jobs and reducing our deficit.

These are just some of the concerns I have with the REINS Act, and some of the reasons that I voted against this unnecessary and ill conceived legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am voting for this legislation because, like the rest of my colleagues, I want to see an end to the illegal manufacture, sale, and use of synthetic drugs that mimic the properties of illegal drugs. Many of these drugs are extremely dangerous and warrant control. In fact, some 30 states, including Hawaii, have laws that address the manufacture, sale, and use of synthetic drugs.

I am concerned, however, that we may be moving too fast. I would prefer to see a bill that is as important as this considered under regular order, with members having an opportunity to offer amendments. I am hoping that the Senate will take a more measured approach in considering this legislation.

I am especially concerned about the application of mandatory minimum sentences and Schedule I penalties that are included in this bill. I support judicial discretion, especially when the lives and futures of young people are involved.

I know too that there are concerns that this could impede legitimate scientific research of chemical compounds listed in this bill. Adjustments to this legislation may be needed to ensure that we don't hinder development of future biomedical breakthroughs.

We need to make sure the legislation targets those most responsible for widespread distribution of these drugs. Most important, we need to find ways to keep our young people from using synthetic drugs. Education of parents and young people is badly needed as is market regulation to reduce the availability and misuse of certain household and industrial aerosol products. Adding to our already crowded prisons is not a real solution to the very real problem of synthetic drugs.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House passed H.R. 3463, a bill terminating the Election Assistance Commission and the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. I voted ``no''.

I also opposed the House-passed legislation in January to eliminate the Presidential Election Campaign Fund (H.R. 359), as well as the previously unsuccessful attempt in June to pass a bill eliminating the Election Assistance Commission (H.R. 672). H.R. 3463 combined these previously considered bills to pay for the cost of the two bills the House considered yesterday and today (H.R. 527 and H.R. 3010). I also voted against those bills because they reduce the ability of federal agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to implement regulations to protect public health, workers, and the environment.

The Election Assistance Commission was established in 2002 as part of the Help America Vote Act. That legislation was enacted because of the widespread irregularities and controversy surrounding the 2000 presidential elections. The commission's immediate role was to oversee payments to states to help them replace punch card and lever voting systems and to develop statewide voter databases. The commission also operates a federal voting system testing and certification program and maintains an election administration information clearinghouse. State and local governments rely on the services provided by the Commission. One year before another presidential election, now is not the time to eliminate the Commission.

The Presidential Campaign Fund was created to establish a system and spending limits for publicly financed presidential elections, providing opportunities for greater competition and transparency. The law that created the Fund in 1972 clearly needs some updating, but it should not be repealed.

Mr. Chair, it is sad for our country that today the U.S. House is voting on H.R. 3094, yet another bill to roll back workers' rights.

Today's bill does nothing for the number one issue on people's minds in Hawaii and around the country: creating new, good-paying jobs.

We're seeing unemployment on Hawaii Island at nearly 10 percent.

On Kauai, it's nearly 9 percent. In Maui County, it's nearly 8 percent.

Instead of addressing this top issue of jobs, today's bill is part of a continuing assault against organized labor around the country. This bill is just like the attacks we saw in Wisconsin and Ohio.

But Ohio's families said no.

And so do Hawaii's.

Because Hawaii families believe working men and women should be able to have a voice at the table.

This belief helped build the middle class in Hawaii and across our country through legislation enabling workers to bargain collectively for better wages and working conditions.

Congress should be focusing on creating jobs--

Not making it easier for a few companies to prevent workers from having a voice in the workplace.

While most employers in Hawaii want to support their workers, I have heard from workers in Hawaii that some companies exploit the current system to prevent workers from having a voice in the workplace.

For example, in February 2003, National Labor Relations Board Administrative Law Judge Gerald Wacknov ruled against a Hawaii business where a labor dispute had been going on for years.

In 2002, workers at this company, who had not been given a raise in six years, asked the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) for help in organizing a union.

Judge Wacknov ruled that ``the Employer's conduct prior to the election . . . substantially interfered with the employees' free choice.''

In the run-up to the union election, the workers were forced to attend one-on-one or group meetings on work time, where the management could convince workers to vote against the union.

Under current law, we know that a company can talk to their workers at any time and urge them to vote against joining a union.

The company can scare workers into thinking that voting for a union will cost them their jobs.

Meanwhile, unions are not allowed to visit the worksite to make their case for joining a union.

They do not have access to complete contact information that will enable them to effectively contact workers.

This company even hired a private security firm and posted large, threatening security guards outside the voting area during the vote.

After Judge Wacknov's ruling in February 2003, the company appealed the decision. A year and a half later, in summer 2004 the overburdened National Labor Relations Board upheld Judge Wacknov's ruling and ordered a new election.

In August 2004, a second election was held for the company's workers, and a majority voted to join the union.

The company appealed yet again.

In February 2005, NLRB Administrative Law Judge James Rose found that the company had effectively stuffed the ballot box in its favor by unfairly adding ineligible voters.

In July 2005--40 months after a petition was first filed to hold an election--the NLRB Board finally certified the ILWU Local 142 as the union for the workers.

Still, the company has continued to offer appeal after appeal of the election's results.

It's now the end of 2011.

The workers still do not have their first bargaining contract for better wages and conditions.

Today's bill on the House floor would make this unfairness even worse.

H.R. 3094 would make it nearly impossible, in contested situations, for workers to come to the table and have a voice in the workplace by voting to join a union.

Nationwide, in contested cases, workers already have to wait an average of four months to vote whether to join a union. Various delays can already occur.

Today's bill would make this problem even worse. It would add an extra minimum waiting period of two weeks before a hearing, and five weeks before an election. This is in addition to the already long wait time.

And each day of delay allows an employer to continue to scare their employees into voting against a union.

Today's bill would add to the NLRB's paperwork burdens. H.R. 3094 would require the NLRB to hear frivolous appeals from a company to stop an election.

This would completely overwhelm the NLRB with thousands of frivolous appeals and delay elections even longer.

Clearly, the current system is already stacked against workers trying to have a voice at the table.

This bill should really be called the ``Election Prevention Act.''

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this bill.

Instead, let's stand with working men and women of this country and focus on what people really want--getting back to work.

Mahalo.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 854, 855, and 856, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on all the above.

personal explanation

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of myself and Congressman David Dreier to discuss a bill that we introduced yesterday, the Visa Improvements to Stimulate International Tourism to the United States of America, VISIT USA, Act.

This is the companion bill to S. 1746, which was introduced on a bipartisan basis in the United States Senate by Senator Schumer of New York and Senator Lee of Utah.

The VISIT USA Act is a common-sense proposal that is about one thing--creating jobs and boosting our economy.

According to the U.S. International Trade Administration, the travel and tourism industry accounts for more than 25 percent of all U.S. services exports--our nation's largest service export, in fact. In 2010, international travel to the U.S. accounted for $134 billion in receipts

for U.S. businesses and supported 7.4 million American jobs--including 152, 864 in my home state of Hawaii, and 873,000 in Congressman Dreier's home state of California.

This legislation will help to support and grow this important industry by making travel to the U.S. easier and more efficient for foreign travelers. Specifically, the bill contains several provisions aimed at increasing visitors from China, making visa processing more efficient, and giving the State Department necessary flexibility to manage the visa process more effectively.

It will also help to solidify and strengthen our relationship with one of our most important travel partners, Canada, and even includes provisions to help address the housing crisis.

China has the world's largest population--1.3 billion people--yet only 802,000 visitors travelled to the U.S. in 2010. These 802,000 visitors spent approximately $5 billion in the U.S. during their stays, the seventh most spent in the U.S. by visitors from any country. Clearly, welcoming more visitors from China will benefit our economy and help to create jobs. In order to do this, the bill provides Chinese visitors that meet the appropriate security requirements with the ability to acquire five year, multiple-entry visitor visas.

The bill would also establish a pilot program that would allow the State Department to conduct visa interviews via videoconference. One of the key challenges for residents of these countries--like China, India, and Brazil--is the need to travel great distances to conduct in-person visa interviews. If successful, this pilot program will help to responsibly reduce wait times and effectively meet the demand for visas in countries with large rural populations.

The bill would also authorize the State Department to charge extra fees in order to expedite the processing of certain visas, and allow Customs and Border Protection to provide expedited visas for foreign dignitaries and other priority visitors. This can be especially important for international meetings, and events such as the Olympics. Finally, the VISIT Act will make changes to visa procedures for nation's that are working closely with the U.S. to combat terrorism.

The VISIT Act also allows the Administration to lower visa application fees during off-peak seasons to help incentivize applications when overall demand is low.

In addition to improving the visa processing system, and incentivizing travelers from untapped markets, the VISIT Act also includes provisions to encourage visitors from the U.S.'s top travel partner--Canada.

In 2010, the U.S. welcomed 20 million visitors from Canada. Those visitors spent over $20 billion during their stays. The VISIT Act creates a ``Canadian Retiree Visa'' which allows Canadian citizens over 50 to apply for 240 day visas. These visas would need to be renewed every three years, and visa holders would have to meet all necessary security requirements, and be able to prove that they have accommodations for the duration of their stay.

Overall, the reforms included in this bill are a cost-effective, bipartisan approach to incentivizing job creation and supporting a critical U.S. industry. In fact, to date the Senate legislation has been endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. Travel Association, the American Hotel & Lodging Association, and the U.S. Olympic Committee.

I'm confident that there will be many other groups--from across the political spectrum--that will support these much needed reforms that Chairman Dreier and I are introducing today.

I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to see this measure passed.

Mr. Speaker, October is Filipino American History Month, giving us opportunity to remember the storied history of Filipinos in Hawaii.

From the barrios of the Philippines, Filipinos boarded ships and sailed across the Pacific.

Upon reaching Hawaii, they worked on sugarcane plantations where life was hard but filled with hope and the dream of a brighter future.

Today, generations later, Filipinos represent the largest and fastest growing ethnic minority in the islands. Through hard work, they continue to make steady strides in all professions. They are our doctors and lawyers, our teachers, small business owners, and community leaders. The next generation of Filipino Americans will build upon this legacy of accomplishment. I had the pleasure of meeting with members of the Kabatak Filipino Club at the University of Hawaii--Maui College in Kahului. Their primary goal is to raise an awareness of Filipino culture and to encourage the recruitment, retention, and achievement of Filipino students on the Maui campus. This is a noble endeavor.

For more than a century, Filipino Americans have left their mark on America. Let us reflect, celebrate, and honor this cherished heritage.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 358, a bill restricting women's access to reproductive health services.

It's odd to me that we are choosing to take up this bill now, when just last week, we saw that our country only created 103,000 jobs.

This is not what people in Hawaii or our nation want us working on.

Debating divisive social issues isn't going to create one single job.

Instead, this bill puts a fundamental freedom--our right to choose-- under direct attack.

Those supporting this bill say it's necessary to prevent federal funding for abortion. They're wrong.

Longstanding federal policy prohibits federal funding of abortion, a provision preserved in The Affordable Care Act. President Obama even issued an executive order reaffirming this prohibition in March 2010.

So what's the real reason behind this bill?

The real reason is to make abortion as unavailable as possible because making abortion illegal is still not possible under Roe v. Wade. This is yet another bill taking a shot at restricting women's access to reproductive health services.

It starts with restricting how women purchase private health insurance with their own money.

The practical result of this bill would be to restrict, for the first time, how women with private insurance can spend their own private dollars in purchasing health insurance.

It says that women who receive a federal subsidy to make coverage affordable in the health insurance exchanges would be unable to purchase a comprehensive health plan.

These women could not even use their own money to pay for the portion of the plan providing abortion coverage. These aren't federal dollars going to purchase that coverage--these are the women's own dollars.

So what happens? It's the ripple effect.

Since many women would be prevented from purchasing insurance with abortion coverage in the exchange, the insurers will probably stop offering it.

Then, no woman will be able to buy health insurance in the exchange with abortion coverage.

And their access to a legal medical procedure just got a lot smaller.

Let's be clear: The goal of this bill is not to maintain the status quo.

Rather, its true goal is to make abortion as unavailable as possible.

For these reasons, it should be rejected.

I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I rise today in opposition to the two bills before the House, H.R. 2250 and H.R. 2681.

There is an old saying, ``The people have spoken.'' The people spoke clearly back in 1990. They said, We want cleaner air and healthier communities. So President George H.W. Bush proposed changes to strengthen the Clean Air Act.

The legislation to carry out these changes was introduced by a coalition of 22 Senators from both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans. Then, after an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 401-25 in the House and 89-10 in the Senate, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were signed into law. That was 21 years ago that these updates to the Clean Air Act were enacted. The law required acid rain, urban air pollution, and toxic air emissions to be combated by reducing the release of 189 poisonous pollutants. The deadline for implementing these changes was the year 2000. Eleven years later, the people of Hawaii and the United States are asking for the certainty that they were promised, the certainty that by 2000 their air, our air, would be on the path to being cleaner.

We have heard the arguments against these regulations before: They are too expensive; they will kill jobs. We have heard the same arguments for years.

However, since the passage of the Clean Air Act 40 years ago, our Nation's economy has grown 200 percent.

When acid rain regulations were proposed after the 1990 law was enacted, industry claimed that it would cost $7.5 billion to comply and tens of thousands of jobs. But we know that that was not what happened. Instead, our economy added 21 million jobs and had the longest-running expansion in our Nation's history.

Recent surveys also show the biggest challenge facing small businesses today isn't regulation. The biggest challenge is that consumer demand for products and services is low.

We all agree that we need to help our economy and create more jobs, but we shouldn't be doing that at the expense of the health of our communities and our families. That is not the way to create jobs. Instead, it's time to give the American people the certainty that the air that we breathe won't contribute to asthma or heart attacks or birth defects; and it's time to give the American people the certainty that when they speak, as they did in 1990, their government will carry out their will.

So enough is enough. The deadlines are passed; the issues have been studied; the rules have been litigated and, in some cases, relitigated. Now is the time for the Environmental Protection Agency to finish the job it was given by Congress and finish these rules, and let's get to work on legislation to create jobs.

I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing both of these bills. The American people want jobs legislation now, not ideological attacks on the Clean Air Act.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, had I been present for the following rollcall Nos., I would have voted as follows: 728, yea; 729, yea; 730, yea; 731, yea; 732, no; 733, no; 734, yea; 735, yea.

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. Con. Res. 28, which will allow the use of Emancipation Hall in the U.S. Capitol for a Medal of Honor Ceremony.

During World War II, many members of University of Hawaii's Reserve Officers Training Corps, ROTC, were Nisei, the American-born sons of Japanese immigrants. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, these brave men aided the wounded, buried the fallen, and helped defend vulnerable areas in Hawaii.

Despite their bravery and loyalty to the United States, in January of 1942 the U.S. Army discharged all Nisei in the ROTC unit, deemed them ineligible for service, and segregated all Japanese-Americans out of their military units. Meanwhile, over a hundred thousand Japanese- Americans were forcibly moved from their homes to internment camps. This forced ouster forever changed the lives of these Japanese- Americans, many of whom lost their land and other property.

Nonetheless, members of the Hawaii Provisional Infantry Battalion, made up of Japanese-Americans, joined the 100th Infantry Battalion, also comprised of Japanese-Americans, to train as soldiers. President Roosevelt admired their bravery and determination, and decided to allow Nisei volunteers to serve in the military again, where they were incorporated into the 442nd Regimental Combat Team.

Members of the 100th and the 442nd risked their lives to fight for our country and allies in Europe. The 442nd ``Go for Broke'' unit was sent repeatedly to the front lines. The 4,000 men who started in April 1943 needed to be replaced more than three times. The unit became the most decorated in U.S. military history for its size and length of service, with the 100th Infantry Battalion earning the nickname ``The Purple Heart Battalion.'' The 100th and the 442nd received seven Presidential Unit Citations, 21 Medals of Honor, 29 Distinguished Service Crosses, 560 Silver Stars, 4,000 Bronze Stars, 22 Legion of Merit Medals, 15 Soldier's Medals, and more than 4,000 Purple Hearts, among numerous additional distinctions. One of these Medal of Honor recipients is Hawaii's own senior Senator, Daniel K. Inouye, the sponsor of today's resolution.

The Army's Military Intelligence Service, MIS, was composed of about 6,000 Japanese-American soldiers who conducted covert intelligence missions, including translating enemy documents, interrogating enemy prisoners of wars, intercepting radio transmissions, and persuading enemy combatants to surrender. The contributions of the MIS have only recently come to light and been publicly acknowledged.

Last year Congress passed and President Obama signed into a law a bill to collectively award the Medal of Honor to Japanese American Veterans of the 442nd Regiment, the 100th Infantry Battalion, and the Military Intelligence Service. It was a distinct honor to be present at the bill signing and meet several of these heroes in person.

Today's resolution allows the use of Emancipation Hall on November 2, 2011 in the U.S. Capitol for a ceremony to present the Medal of Honor to these brave Japanese-American veterans for their service and sacrifice during World War II. Many veterans from Hawaii or their next- of-kin will travel a great distance to attend this ceremony.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.