Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Geographically, Hawaii is the world's most isolated archipelago. It is the only U.S. State made up completely of islands. There are four counties in Hawaii, all of which are separated by a body of water. Air travel is the fastest and most effective means of transportation between our islands. It is also the mode of transportation that we rely on most for moving goods and other cargo and even our daily mail.

The 15 airports operated by the Airports Division of the Hawaii Department of Transportation are responsible for maintaining safe and efficient facilities that accommodate approximately 25 million passengers a year. This is a tremendous responsibility and an ongoing challenge. It is because of the fundamental role that air travel plays in the day-to-day lives of the people of Hawaii and in the commerce of Hawaii that Congress saw fit to provide the State with an exemption from charging passenger facility fees, or PFCs, on interisland flights. These are the flights between our islands.

This exemption is important for Hawaii's residents. Without it, for many, the daily commute would be unduly burdensome. I know many people who live on O'ahu, for example, who commute to work on one of the other islands. It would be as if you, or if any of your constituents, got in your car to go to work and then had to pay $4.50, which is our PFC fee, just to leave your driveway and then have to pay another $4.50 upon your return.

While we greatly appreciate and seek to preserve this exemption, there have been unintended consequences with regard to its impact on Federal funds for Hawaii's airports. This is because of the way that PFCs impact the formula funding that is apportioned to each State under the Airport Improvement Program, or the AIP.

As my colleagues know, AIP grants are awarded to each State based on a formula. For airports that opt to collect PFCs, formula funds are cut by either 50 or 75 percent. This reduction depends on the amount charged. For airports that assess PFCs on 100 percent of their passengers, this arrangement works well. However, in the case of Hawaii, the two airports that collect PFCs only collect them on a portion of the passengers.

At our large hub airport in Honolulu, 38 percent of our passengers are interisland travelers. Interisland travelers also constitute 51 percent of the passengers served by our medium hub at Kahului Airport on Maui. Therefore, the $4.50 PFC being assessed at Honolulu is only being paid by 62 percent of its passengers. On Maui, that number is only 49 percent.

Based on the current formula, the Hawaii Department of Transportation calculates that the State is losing approximately $5.7 million this year in AIP formula entitlement funds. My amendment would change the formula under which Hawaii's PFCs and entitlements are calculated in order to correct this inequity.

I want to be clear to my colleagues: This amendment is intended only to ensure that Hawaii gets its full fair share under the AIP program. Hawaii's airports would still be subject to the same 75 percent reduction as any other airport charging a $4.50 PFC. The calculation would simply take into account the percentage of passengers traveling interisland and therefore not paying a PFC.

I also want to point out that this is not a windfall for the State or, in my view, an earmark. In fact, House rule XXI, clause 9(e), the definition for ``earmark,'' defines an ``earmark'' as essentially any member-requested Federal assistance to a targeted entity or locality ``other than through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or competitive award process.''

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

I want to thank Subcommittee Chair Petri and Mr. Mica for accepting my amendment.

Thank you very much.

I do want to offer my other amendment, however.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

In view of the fact that you are in agreement with my amendment, if you would be so kind as to yield a minute of your time to my colleague, Colleen Hanabusa, so she may submit her remarks on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

I rise to speak in favor of this amendment, and I certainly appreciate the opportunity to speak on this amendment.

The basic idea of this amendment is to ensure the safety of the traveling public and those whose job it is to get them safely to their destinations, and my amendment has to do with smoke in the cockpit.

I do note that the FAA reauthorization bill that is under consideration today already acknowledges the concern about smoke in the cockpit, because it requires the GAO to study what the FAA has done to address smoke in the cockpit. So my bill takes this concern to a more focused level by establishing an aviation rulemaking committee, an ARC, made up of representatives from aviation labor, industry, and other experts.

Their task would be to carefully examine and provide regulatory recommendations on the issue of cockpit smoke. This advisory committee will not cost the taxpayers any money, and this amendment does not mandate rulemaking. The administrator of the FAA would then review the recommendations, and report to Congress on the steps that he or she will take to address them.

The problem of smoke in the cockpit is not new. In fact, my colleague from Hawaii, Senator Inouye, introduced

legislation to address this matter as long ago as 1993. And I want to note his introductory remarks on the bill because, 20 years later, we still have not adequately addressed this problem.

In introducing his legislation in 1993, he said, ``My colleagues will be troubled to learn that over the last 20 years there have been a dozen accidents on commercial aircraft in which dense continuous smoke in the airline cockpit may have been a factor. In these accidents, over 850 people have died.''

That was in 1993. Almost another 20 years has passed. Since then, even more lives have been lost in accidents where cockpit smoke was the cause or a factor.

Some will say that, while tragic, incidents such as these are rare and that there are already procedures in place to avoid them. Fortunately, yes, incidents that end in death are rare. However, I believe the available evidence tells a different story about the number of times when smoke in the cockpit comes about.

According to a more recent report, the FAA's Information for Operators Bulletin released October 6, 2010, the FAA noted that they receive over 900 reports a year of smoke or fumes in the cabin or cockpit. An average of 900 incidents in 365 days does not seem to me to be a rare occurrence.

I believe that our national response to this issue has been inadequate. We need a comprehensive, up-to-date analysis of the issue and real-action next steps to protect our pilots and passengers. Therefore, I believe that my amendment is reasonable, logical, does not cost money, and it takes us toward resolving this issue. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I again note that the underlying FAA reauthorization bill that we are contemplating tonight acknowledges this concern by asking the DOA to assess what the FAA has done in this area. So, to me, that says that this is an ongoing concern that is acknowledged in the underlying bill.

In addition, I would like to note that there are any number of private airlines that already have these kinds of systems that I am talking about in my amendment in their fleets. For example, Jet Blue has these systems, UPS. And on the Federal side, I think it is really interesting to note that the FAA's VIP fleet has this kind of system in its cockpits to make sure that their pilots can see when there is continuous dense smoke in the cockpit.

So, again, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment as being reasonable and taking us to the next steps to address this issue.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would like to close by reiterating once again that I think it is interesting that the FAA chooses to focus on the causes of cockpit smoke. Frankly, if there is smoke in the cockpit, I don't know that we need to be focusing that much on what causes the smoke. Of course that is important. But at the same time, what I care about on behalf of the pilot and the flying public is, what can we do. What systems are already available, what technology is already available, being used, I might say, extensively by the private sector as well as in government airplanes, that would ensure the safety of our pilots and flying public? This is why I continue to press the adoption of my amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the bipartisan LaTourette-Costello amendment to keep democratic voting rights for air and rail workers.

I see the current provision in the FAA Reauthorization Bill as reflecting an anti-worker agenda that abandons our most basic democratic principles. Without this amendment, the FAA bill would count workers who choose not to vote in a union election as a no vote on union representation.

Each member of the House of Representatives got here through a fair and democratic election. In November, our states counted the votes for us and compared it to the votes for other candidates. Those with the most votes in November are Members of Congress today. If we needed to win a majority or plurality of all eligible voters--including nonvoters--none of us would be here today!

I know that not all members of the House support workers' right to organize, but I would hope we all respect the democratic process. I applaud this bipartisan amendment and thank its sponsors, Mr. LaTourette and Mr. Costello. I urge all my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, today a united Hawaii delegation will be introducing the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act in both Chambers of Congress. Long denied the recognition and rights accorded to America's other indigenous people, this bill will finally enable Native Hawaiians to embark on their long awaited process of achieving self-determination.

On the House side, Congresswoman Hanabusa and I have the great pleasure of being joined in this effort by Congressman Don Young, Congressman Eni Faleomavaega, Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo and Congressman Tom Cole. All are longstanding friends of Hawaii and Native Hawaiians.

How we treat our native indigenous people reflects our values and who we are as a country. Clearly, there is much in the history of our interactions with the native people of what is now the United States that makes us less than proud. The American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians, all indigenous people, have suffered at the hands of our Government. But one of the great attributes of America has always been the ability to look objectively at our history, learn from it, and when possible make amends.

The bill we are introducing today has been more than 10 years in the making. It has been a deliberative and open legislative process. There have been 12 congressional hearings on Native Hawaiian recognition, five of which were held in Hawaii. These bills have been marked up by committees in both Chambers. The House has passed Native Hawaiian recognition bills three times: First in 2000, again in 2007, and most recently just last year.

The goals and purposes of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act are consistent with the history of the Native Hawaiian people and the record of United States involvement in Hawaii. The bill is also consistent with over 188 existing Federal laws that promote the welfare of Native Hawaiian people.

I know there are Members who question these authorized programs simply because Native Hawaiian is in the title, which is exactly why we need this bill. It will formalize the very special political and legal relationship between the United States and the Native Hawaiians by providing a process through which the Native Hawaiian community can reorganize its governing entity within this relationship. This is how we treat Alaska Natives and American Indians, and this is how we should treat Native Hawaiians.

The Kingdom of Hawaii was overthrown in 1893. Hawaii's last monarch, Queen Liliuokalani, was deposed by an armed group of businessmen and sugar planters who were American by birth or heritage, with the support, abetted by U.S. troops. The Queen agreed to relinquish her throne, under protest, to avoid bloodshed.

She believed the United States, with which Hawaii had diplomatic relations, would restore her to the throne.

There may be new Members to this body who have not had occasion to learn the history of Hawaii, and I extend an open invitation to those Members to share this history with you.

The State of Hawaii motto, which is also the motto of the Kingdom of Hawaii, is, ``Ua mau ke ea o ka aina i ka

pono,'' which translates to, ``The life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness.''

Native Hawaiians, like American Indians and Alaska Natives, have an inherent sovereignty based on their status as indigenous aboriginal people. I ask for your support of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act.

Mahalo nui loa. (Thank you very much).

Last week, when most of us were in our respective districts, representatives from community health centers around the country came to Capitol Hill to remind us of the essential role they play in our communities. I hope that the staff of Members who voted for H.R. 1, which drastically cuts funding for these very health centers, listen to the stories they heard last week.

I have long supported community health centers because in my district, spread over seven inhabited islands, access to care is a challenge. Although their principal focus has been to provide health care for the underserved, these centers serve people at all income levels.

Hawaii's network of community health centers serve nearly 127,000 patients, and only one-third of them are Medicaid eligible. On the island of Lanai, 40 percent of the residents receive care through their community health center. This population, 25 percent of which are over 65 years of age, can't afford to fly to another island for care.

Funding for community health centers is an investment because prevention is more cost effective than treatment. I urge my colleagues to reject cuts to community health centers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this bill to expand the failed private school voucher program in Washington, D.C. In this time of budget strife and cutbacks for public school districts all across the country, this is the wrong time to take Federal money away from public schools and give it to private schools.

When I evaluate education or any other policy, I want to see the research on what works. Despite claims that the D.C. voucher system would improve academic achievement of D.C. students, multiple congressionally mandated Department of Education studies have concluded that the program has not improved these students' academic achievement in reading or math.

Further, the studies found the voucher program to have had no effect on student satisfaction, engagement, motivation, or students' feelings of security. The studies found no significant impact on students' career aspirations, participation in extracurricular activities, homework completion, reading for fun, or tardiness. Students with special education needs, English language learners, and gifted students in the voucher program were less likely to have access to key services than their peers in public school.

Despite receiving public money under the D.C. voucher program, these private schools do not take all students. In addition, teachers at these private schools are not subject to the same certification requirements as those in D.C. public schools.

This bill also makes an exception to the majority's own budget rules, which require that all legislation proposing new funding must slash funding from somewhere else. This bill adds $300 million to the deficit without any such offset. These kinds of exceptions make a mockery of their own rules, particularly when there is little evidence to support the underlying bill, itself.

I understand that many voucher supporters are disappointed with the quality of our public schools. This says to me that there is common ground for Members from both sides of the aisle to improve our public schools. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 839, the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) Termination Act.

The House majority supports H.R. 839 and other bills that would end new and existing foreclosure mitigation programs, turning their backs on the middle class families in our country.

Instead of coming up with practical ways to improve these programs, or establishing new initiatives that assist homeowners and stabilize the housing market, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle support immediate termination of these programs without working to address the housing crisis and its effect on the nation's economy.

Most of us would agree that HAMP has not been nearly as successful as initially hoped. Since this program started, about 5 million foreclosures have been completed. HAMP is far from reaching the targeted goal of assisting 3 to 4 million homeowners: nearly 1.5 million homeowners have received a trial HAMP

modification, but only about 600,000 have had their mortgages permanently modified under HAMP.

On March 28th, fifty of my colleagues and I sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Geithner to share our concerns about HAMP, including (1) establishing a single point of contact requirement for mortgage servicers; (2) suspending the foreclosure process when the borrower makes a request for a loan modification; (3) providing for an independent review of loan modification denials; and (4) urging the Treasury Department to begin levying fines and penalties against servicers who fail to follow program rules. These reforms are essential to ensure that HAMP becomes a more successful and effective program.

While HAMP has been far from perfect, the program has had its share of successes. About 30,000 additional homeowners are receiving a permanent HAMP modification every month.

Moreover, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency reports that the re-default rate for the program's permanent modifications at six months was about half that of other modifications, and nearly 85 percent of homeowners who received a permanent HAMP modification remain in their modification a year later. This program has also set important mortgage industry standards to address the magnitude of this housing crisis and ensure that struggling homeowners get the help that they need to stay in their homes.

If it were not for HAMP, there is no question that even more homes in my congressional district would have been subject to foreclosure. A constituent from Hilo on the island of Hawaii contacted me desperate for assistance. At 72 years old, he has a medical condition and lives on a fixed income. This constituent has no substantial debt and put in over $300,000 of his savings into his home. His bank ignored his pleas for help, and he was on track to getting a foreclosure notice until he received assistance from HAMP.

Another constituent, a disabled veteran living in Volcano on the island of Hawaii, tried for over two years to get help from her lender, to no avail. It was only as a result of the Making Home Affordable foreclosure prevention services that she was able to get a permanent loan modification, which saved her $500 a month and lowered her interest rate by over two percentage points.

These are only two of the personal and heart-wrenching stories that I've heard from people in my congressional district who are struggling to stay in their homes. The bottom line is that HAMP provides yet another lifeline for these families. Terminating HAMP would effectively end a lifeline to tens of thousands of homeowners.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this misguided bill.

Mr. Speaker, while I support the intent of this bill, I rise in reluctant opposition to H. Con. Res. 28, legislation introduced by Congressman Kucinich directing the President to remove U.S. Armed Forces from Afghanistan within 30 days.

I agree with Congressman Kucinich that we must have an exit strategy and a concrete plan to withdraw troops from Afghanistan. However, I voted against this resolution when it came up for a vote last year because I believed that withdrawing all troops 30 days after enactment of the bill was unrealistic.

Yesterday, along with a large number of my like-minded colleagues in the House, I sent a letter to President Obama urging him to prepare for a significant and sizeable drawdown of troops from Afghanistan that begins this July. I ask for permission to include this letter for the record.

Last December, the Obama Administration concluded in its review of the war in Afghanistan that we will be ready to begin a responsible drawdown in July 2011. This week, General Petraeus testified before Congress that he would keep our military and counterinsurgency gains in mind as he begins to provide recommendations to the President on commencing our military drawdown in July.

We have now entered the tenth year that American troops have been in Afghanistan, the longest war in U.S. history. An overwhelming majority of the American people--including an increasing number of Members of Congress--supports a safe and significant redeployment of U.S troops from Afghanistan soon.

There is no question that we need to end our mission in Afghanistan. I will carefully review the Obama Administration's assessment of the war effort, including plans for a drawdown, in the coming months. Insufficient progress in withdrawing U.S. troops by July 2011 will compel me to support a resolution like this in the future.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, March 16, 2011.

Hon. Barack Obama,

President of the United States,

The White House, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. President, We write to you to: express our utmost

support for your planned drawdown of the U.S. military

presence in Afghanistan beginning no later than July of this

year. We, the undersigned members of Congress, believe the

forthcoming reduction in U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan

must be significant and sizeable, and executed in an orderly

fashion.

Our nation's economic and national security interests are

not served by a policy of open-ended war in Afghanistan. At a

time of severe economic distress, the war in Afghanistan is

costing the United States more than $100 billion per year,

excluding the long-term costs of care for returning military

servicemembers. At the same time, military and intelligence

officials agree that Al Qaeda's presence in Afghanistan is

diminished and that there will not be a military solution to

resolve the current situation. It is simply unsustainable for

our nation to maintain a costly, military-first strategy in

Afghanistan.

A significant redeployment of U.S. troops from Afghanistan

beginning in July 2011 will send a clear signal that the

United States does not seek a permanent presence in

Afghanistan. This transition will provide incentive for

internal stakeholders to improve upon the political status

quo, reduce corruption, and take meaningful steps toward the

establishment of an effective, trustworthy, and inclusive

governance structure. A meaningful start to withdrawal will

also empower U.S. diplomatic engagement with regional and

global stakeholders who share a common interest in the long-

term stability of Afghanistan.

The majority of the American people overwhelmingly support

a rapid shift toward withdrawal in Afghanistan. In fact, a

Gallup Poll released on February 2, 2011 indicated that 72%

of Americans favor action this year to ``speed up the

withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.'' Let us be clear. The

redeployment of a minimal number of U.S. troops from

Afghanistan in July will not meet the expectations of

Congress or the American people.

Mr. President, as you work to finally bring an end to the

war in Iraq by the end of this year, we must commit ourselves

to ensuring that our nation's military engagement in

Afghanistan does not become the status quo. It is time to

focus on securing a future of economic opportunity and

prosperity for the American people and move swiftly to end

America's longest war in Afghanistan.

Mr. President, we look forward to working with you to make

that goal a reality.

Sincerely,

Joe Baca; Tammy Baldwin; Karen Bass; Lois Capps; Michael

E. Capuano; Andre Carson; Yvette D. Clarke; Steve

Cohen; John Conyers, Jr.; Jerry F. Costello; Elijah E.

Cummings; Danny K. Davis (IL); Peter A. DeFazio; Rosa

L. DeLauro; Theodore E. Deutch; John J. Duncan, Jr.

(TN); Donna F. Edwards; Keith Ellison; Sam Farr; Bob

Filner; Barney Frank; Marcia L. Fudge; John Garamendi;

Raul M. Grijalva; Luis V. Gutierrez; Alcee L. Hastings;

Maurice D. Hinchey; Mazie K. Hirono; Rush D. Holt;

Michael M. Honda; Jesse L. Jackson, Jr.; Sheila Jackson

Lee; Eddie

Bernice Johnson; Hank Johnson, Jr.; Timothy V. Johnson;

Walter B. Jones; Barbara Lee; John B. Larson; John

Lewis; Zoe Lofgren; Ben Ray Lujan; Carolyn B. Maloney;

Edward J. Markey; Doris O. Matsui; Jim McDermott; James

P. McGovern; Michael H. Michaud; George Miller; Gwen

Moore; James P. Moran; Christopher S. Murphy; Grace

Napolitano; Eleanor Holmes Norton; John W. Olver; Bill

Pascrell, Jr.; Ron Paul; Donald M. Payne; Chellie

Pingree; Jared Polis; David E. Price; Mike Quigley;

Rep, Charles B. Rangel; Laura Richardson; Lucille

Roybal-Allard; Linda T. Sanchez; Loretta Sanchez;

Janice D. Schakowsky; Bobby Scott; Jose E. Serrano;

Albio Sires; Louise McIntosh Slaughter; Jackie Speier;

Pete Stark; Mike Thompson (CA); John F. Tierney;

Edolphus Towns; Niki Tsongas; Maxine Waters; Anthony D.

Weiner; Peter Welch; Lynn C. Woolsey, Members of

Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1076, which prohibits federal funding for National Public Radio (NPR) and radio content acquisition.

According to a preliminary estimate from Congressional Budget Office, this bill will produce no savings for the taxpayers and will not reduce the deficit. This is an ideologically driven piece of legislation that does nothing to reduce our deficit.

Each week, 27.2 million Americans nationwide turn to NPR to find the kind of news, music programs, and interesting entertainment they can't get elsewhere. NPR offers quality in-depth reporting, insightful commentary, and an on-air forum that allows a wide range of voices to be heard. With political rhetoric and ideological name-calling filling cable news programs, NPR's news coverage has become an essential source for people looking for the facts. This is why 8 out of 10 voters oppose cutting federal funding for public broadcasting.

In my district, Hawaii Public Radio (HPR) engages its island listeners through countless events statewide. These include the Hawaii Book and Musical Festival as well as a series of pre-performance lectures at the Hawaii Opera Theatre. HPR also embraces Native Hawaiian culture with its daily Hawaiian language newsbreak and the ``Hawaiian Word of the Day'' feature.

With the program Aloha Shorts, HPR promotes local poets and actors. HPR has even given our children an opportunity to be heard by a national audience having young musicians featured in the sold out From the Top performances, which received national broadcast. With over 400 volunteers and audiences on all islands, HPR shares the diversity of Hawaii with communities across the country.

Hawaii Public Radio is not just a radio station--it's an essential part of our island community and deserves federal support.

I urge my colleagues to recognize the importance of NPR in people's daily lives and vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Richard Ornellas, an outstanding

history and special education teacher at Molokai High School in my district. Mr. Ornellas's students are in Washington this week for the Close Up Washington Civic Education Program. The Close Up Foundation is presenting Mr. Ornellas with an award for his dedication to the program over many years.

I visited Molokai High School in 2008 for a discussion on teacher effectiveness. The group's participants shared their views that an effective teacher is one who is experienced, ``helps you understand,'' and ``makes it fun.'' Mr. Ornellas helped organize his Close Up students to raise funds for the trip by writing fundraising letters and selling plate lunches and food at the Molokai Hoe race. His students have even been blogging about their trip on the school website! For getting his students so excited to learn about our nation's history first-hand, I would definitely call Mr. Ornellas an effective teacher.

Mr. Omellas is a strong supporter of this program, which gives students a first-hand experience with democracy in our nation's capital. Using the Close Up curriculum--tied to state history standards--Mr. Ornellas helps his students understand how our democracy works and inspires them to become more active in their school and community.

Over 95 percent of the program's 500,000 participants have reported that the program helped them better understand their roles as citizens.

I salute Mr. Ornellas for his dedication to providing a well-rounded civic education for his students. I am presenting him with a flag that flew over the U.S. Capitol in his honor.

Congratulations to Mr. Ornellas and the many students he has helped influence over the years.

Mr. Speaker, I grew up in Fukushima, Japan, where earthquake preparedness is part of life, but nothing could have prepared any nation for the natural disasters that occurred on Friday.

While my mother has successfully contacted our relatives in Japan, many families haven't been able to find or contact their loved ones. Thousands of victims are in shelters. Many are still missing. The death toll continues to rise.

``Tsunami'' is a Japanese word that the world understands. We have seen the 30-foot walls of water sweeping across farmlands, wiping out everything in its path.

``Gaman'' is a Japanese word that describes strength and endurance. Gaman will help the Japanese people through this tragedy, but they do not stand alone. People from all over the world have sent messages of support, and donations continue. In the midst of tragedy, common humanity transcends geopolitical boundaries.

Hawaii's ties to Japan are deep. Hawaii's banks are donation dropoff points. The Hawaii blood bank is coordinating a national drive. Fukushima and Miyagi Kenjin Kai and the Honolulu Japanese Chamber of Commerce are among many helping.

Minasan, doomo arigatou gozaimasu--everyone, thank you very much.

I thank the gentleman from Colorado for the time.

I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 861, the Neighborhood Stabilization Program Termination Act, NSP.

We keep hearing from the other side about wasteful government spending. Nothing represents wasteful government spending more than the continuing billions and billions of dollars of taxpayer money that we give to Big Oil, which is making record profits. This bill continues the Republican assault on the middle class and the working people.

For the sake of our communities, we cannot afford to terminate NSP. By redeveloping foreclosed and abandoned properties, this program is stabilizing neighborhoods nationwide. This not only increases property values but also reduces the number of foreclosures. NSP provides a lifeline to struggling families who are trying to secure affordable housing or simply stay in their homes.

Like the rest of the country, Hawaii has a foreclosure crisis. We rank 10th in the Nation in the rate of foreclosures. The $19.6 million in NSP funding that Hawaii received is helping our communities in the greatest need throughout my State. The City and County of Honolulu will use these funds to redevelop vacant properties and build two affordable rental housing projects in Ewa and Waianae. In Hawaii County, an affordable rental housing project will be built on vacant property in Kailua-Kona. In the counties of Maui and Kauai, NSP funds will be used to buy and rehabilitate abandoned or foreclosed homes and residential properties throughout both counties.

So you can see that this is money that is not represented as wasteful spending. Our communities need our help. Vote against this bill.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

First of all, the cuts to NOAA and our Weather Service are contained in H.R. 1, and we have not reached agreement on H.R. 1, which is why we are doing yet another CR. And, believe me, those kinds of cut to NOAA and our Weather Service will have an impact on our ability to implement early warning systems.

Some of you may not know that Hawaii has already suffered millions and millions of dollars of damages as a result of the tsunami. And, yes, it does not compare at all to the tragedy that the Japanese people are facing, but nonetheless, thank goodness, our early warning systems were in place.

Now, as to this CR, I rise in opposition to this CR, which continues the Republican strategy of cutting $2 billion every week from programs that support jobs and our families.

I want to focus on just one program being cut, out of many, by the way, that affect real people in real ways that is particularly troubling to me in this CR. This is the elimination of all funding for the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operation Program, popularly known as PL 566.

This $30 million program means a lot to small rural communities nationwide. For Hawaii, the decline of the sugar and pineapple industries has forced us to transition from large scale plantation agriculture to small scale farming. PL 566 has been the only Federal program that has really worked to deal with our agricultural water issues, and it is the single most important Federal agriculture program for Hawaii.

Hawaii is the most food import-dependent State in the entire country, so agricultural self-sufficiency is a priority for us, which is one reason why continued funding for Hawaii's PL 566 project is so critical.

In addition, PL 566 provides flood prevention for small communities that the Army Corps does not serve. Hawaii projects include the Lower Hamakua Ditch Watershed Project to rehabilitate a 26-mile-long irrigation ditch that provides water to hundreds, hundreds of small farmers on Hawaii Island.

Another project is the Upcountry Maui Watershed Project, providing water to 170 farmers and ranchers on Maui, and also the Wailuku-Alenaoi Watershed and Lahaina Watershed Projects that prevent flooding on Hawaii and Maui.

These long-term projects help to build our local economies and create jobs, and stopping these projects in midstream is irresponsible, unsafe, and makes no economic sense at all. Most of these projects are well under way. We need to continue funding these programs to support our communities and support jobs.

This program has long had bipartisan support. In fact, last year, I signed a joint letter, led by Agriculture Committee Chairman Lucas, urging funding for this program.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Medicaid Coverage for Citizens of Freely Associated States Act of 2011. I would like to thank Congressman Eni Faleomavaega, Congresswoman Colleen Hanabusa, and Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo for cosponsoring this bill.

Compact Migrants are citizens from Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau that have migrated to the United States. Citizens from these countries are allowed to freely enter the United States without a visa, criminal background check, or health certification due to agreements signed by the Federal Government.

The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act prohibited Federal Medicaid payments for nonimmigrants, a category that includes Compact Migrants. Prior to this specific prohibition, Compact Migrants were covered by Medicaid. Since enactment of the Federal welfare reform law, state and territorial governments have been the sole sources of funding for meeting the social service and public health needs of this ever growing population.

In 2007, Hawaii spent over $37 million to cover the health care costs of the state's Compact Migrant population. Of this amount, $30 million would have been eligible for partial Federal reimbursement through the Medicaid program.

The decision to allow citizens of the Freely Associated States to come to the United States was a Federal decision; however, the cost of that decision has fallen mainly on a handful of states and territories. Most Compact Migrants have settled in the Pacific region, likely because the environments and climates are similar to their home nations. Hawaii is home to 12,215 Compact Migrants; Guam, 18,305; and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands, 2,100. Compact Migrants are also on the continental United States, including California, Oregon, Washington, and Arkansas--a state where they have been specifically recruited as laborers. Restoring Medicaid coverage is the only fair way to address the Federal mandate.

Our former colleague and now Governor of Hawaii, Neil Abercrombie, worked with Congressman Eliot Engel and Congresswoman Anna Eshoo on an amendment to provide Medicaid coverage for Compact Migrants during the mark-up of the House health care reform bill by the Energy and Commerce Committee. This amendment was adopted by the Committee by a voice vote.

Regrettably, the Senate health care reform bill did not include comparable language. So today, I am introducing that same, bipartisan supported amendment language as a stand-alone bill.

Restoring the Medicaid eligibility of Compact Migrants is an important issue not only for Hawaii, but also Arkansas, California, Oregon, and Washington as well as the territories of American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Marianas Islands. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on this important issue.

Mahalo nui loa.

Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 836, the Emergency Mortgage Relief Program Termination Act.

The Emergency Mortgage Relief Program, also known as the Emergency Homeowners Loan Program, EHLP, was established to help responsible homeowners who, through no fault of their own, are unemployed or underemployed or suffer from a medical condition and can no longer make their mortgage payments.

The $1 billion relief fund provides these homeowners with zero- interest loans, credit advances, or payments. Up to 30,000 distressed homeowners at risk of foreclosure could be assisted by this program. The Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, is working to implement EHLP as soon as possible to assist homeowners in the 32 states that are not participating in the Hardest Hit Fund, HHF, a successful $7.6 billion fund that has been made available to the 18 states that have been hardest hit by the housing crisis. EHLP is also modeled after a highly successful program in Pennsylvania. Simply terminating EHLP before it has had a chance to take effect and help the homeowners who need it the most is unconscionable.

With 13.7 million people unemployed in our country, I am sure that all of my colleagues have constituents who are unemployed or underemployed and are in need of a lifeline.

I met a couple who work as substitute teachers in Kona on Hawaii Island. As the economy worsened, it became harder and harder for them to find steady work. Despite

applying for numerous jobs, they remained underemployed. For more than a year, they tried to work with their mortgage lender to avoid delinquency and foreclosure, submitting all of their financial documentation many times. The lender clearly was not motivated to help them. It was only through the support of the Hawaii HomeOwnership Center, a federally funded nonprofit in Hawaii that provides foreclosure prevention assistance, in addition to an inquiry from my office that the couple was able to get forbearance and a permanent modification. To top it off, the husband received a good job offer. But, this couple will never forget the stress and anxiety of fighting to keep their home.

Not all the stories of struggling homeowners have a happy ending. In fact, many of them do not. Programs like the Emergency Homeowners Loan Program are a lifeline for these individuals and families. This bill is another example of Republicans turning their backs on middle class Americans.

I urge my colleagues to help struggling homeowners throughout the country by supporting programs like EHLP and voting against this measure.

Thank you very much.

I thank the two gentlemen from Oregon for bringing this matter to our attention.

I think we make a very serious mistake when, in a fervor to cut budgets and to do it in a meat-ax way, we cut the very programs that we're going to need to rely upon in times like this, meaning in the times of the kind of devastation that has hit Japan. Of course, Hawaii is the first U.S. State to be hit with the tidal wave that followed that disaster, and it's still playing out. We still haven't done the ``all clear'' sign in Hawaii, by the way.

With the kinds of cuts that we are contemplating in H.R. 1, FEMA is going to have a major impact. I also want to say, before I go further, that our hearts go out to the people of Japan, and we stand ready to assist them in any way. I think that it is so important at a time like this that we have the resources to employ the best technology, cutting- edge equipment, well-trained personnel to respond when these emergencies occur.

In fact, when this tragedy occurred in Japan, they dedicated Federal employees at the National Weather Service at a specific tsunami warning center, and they were there to provide advance warning to the people of our islands. This early warning allowed the Coast Guard, Hawaii State Civil Defense, and the other State and county officials to put into motion the State's emergency warning response plans.

This whole thing began to unfold in Hawaii in the very early morning hours. I'm just grateful that all of our first responders had everything they needed in order to be able to take the appropriate action. They had to decide whether or not schools would be open and whether public buildings were going to remain open. In fact, they did evacuate people in the low-lying areas just to make sure that the safety of our people and of our visitors would be protected.

So, right now, the reports are encouraging in Hawaii. There has been some flooding on several islands, but the level of damage, however, thankfully, is not severe. There have been no reports of injuries or fatalities, but as I mentioned, the ``all clear'' sign is not there yet.

So the kind of cuts to FEMA, we mentioned already the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, would have seen its budget cut by $454.3 million, including our $126 million cut to the National Weather Service. So there goes advance warning.

The cuts would not have spared the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, either. And according to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's analysis, cuts to FEMA and the Coast Guard would have totaled $441 million. This includes a $105 million cut to the Coast Guard's acquisition, construction and improvement accounts, money for ships and equipment to deal with emergencies; a $50 million cut to FEMA's Interoperable Emergency Communication Grants program, money that helps our first responders get the equipment to communicate with each other.

This was a huge problem when 9/11 occurred, where our first responders could not keep track of what was going on, couldn't talk to each other. So a $35 million cut to FEMA's predisaster mitigation grants, hurting our communities' ability to implement necessary prevention measures against threats.

So we've heard all the time about we should learn to do more with less. Well, in our Transportation and Infrastructure Committee hearing where we had the people from the Coast Guard come to testify, these kinds of cuts mean that they really are facing doing less with less. And we also hear about how families understand the need to cut. Well, when families cut, they do less with less.

So these kinds of slogans and the kind of meat-ax approach to the kinds of cuts we're looking at in H.R. 1 are devastating, and especially now when we are once again confronted with a huge, huge natural disaster in Japan that can have ramifications particularly on Hawaii and the west coast.

It, again, shows the foolishness of these kinds of massive cuts that really disable our ability to deal with these disasters.