Floor Statements

I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, an amendment offered earlier directing the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Secretary of the Treasury to study the negative impacts of underwater mortgages on the housing market and on the U.S. economy and to report the findings of this study to Congress, including recommendations on how to mitigate the effects of these mortgages, makes eminent sense to me.

About 12 million to 15 million homeowners, nearly one quarter of homeowners in this country, are currently underwater on their mortgages, meaning that they owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth. These borrowers are diligently making their mortgage payments but need some kind of lifeline to reduce their debt burden.

We all agree that we need to look at ways to cut government spending to address our country's fiscal crisis, but what is the purpose of this underlying bill? Why are my colleagues on the other side of the aisle trying to end programs that were established to assist families suffering from the foreclosure crisis without offering any plan or remedy to help the millions of Americans who are trying to stay in their homes?

Families in every single one of our congressional districts are desperately seeking help to stay in their homes, the American Dream. Last year, I met with an owner of a car dealership in Kihei, Maui. This constituent had a successful business until the economic downturn reduced the number of her car sales. Increasingly, former customers of hers were returning to her dealership to return the cars that they had purchased from her, handing back their keys because they could no longer afford to make their car payments.

This car dealer eventually found herself in dire straits, so much so that her lender wanted to put her dream home up for a short sale. She didn't understand why the lender was only considering a short sale and didn't want to work with her to help her keep her house.

It was only when my office contacted the lender on her behalf that she was able to receive a forbearance on a portion of the principle and get a permanent modification. Sadly, stories like hers are commonplace these days.

The Federal foreclosure mitigation programs, which unfortunately have not helped as many homeowners as we would like, still provide a lifeline. Without these programs, many more lenders would be pursuing short sales and foreclosures rather than trying to help meet homeowners halfway in helping them keep their homes.

The FHA Refinance Program, also known as the FHA Short Refinance Option, assists underwater borrowers by facilitating voluntary mortgage principal write-downs and refinancing the loans into a new stable FHA- insured mortgage, thereby enabling borrows to have a reduced monthly payment and a mortgage that is more aligned with actual property values.

FHA just started implementing this program a few months ago; we need to give the agency time to get it off the ground. We should also focus on what can be done to make the programs more effective so that the maximum number of underwater borrowers who are eligible for the program can benefit.

Instead of coming up with new initiatives to assist thousands of homeowners or working to improve existing foreclosure mitigation programs, bills like this will only serve to destabilize an already fragile housing market and further delay our economic recovery. With bills like this, the House majority continues to turn their backs on the middle class families and our country. Let's focus on what can be done now to stabilize the housing market, create jobs, and get the economy back on track.

I urge my colleagues to vote against the underlying bill.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Holt

Thank you. Relatively new Member. I am really glad to join the two of you in honoring and acknowledging the work of our Federal workers. Ms. Edwards and I sit on the same Transportation and Infrastructure Committee; and, yes, it was quite revealing to talk about the kinds of changes some people were proposing to the FAA bill that would have totally changed the way you count votes. It is a way to count votes that doesn't happen in any other arena.

Certainly, if we had to count votes where all the people who were registered to vote didn't vote would be counted as a ``no'' vote, I would say that most of us here, including our friends on the other side of the aisle, would not be here.

That's very telling to me, the kind of perspective that's reflected, any kind of an effort that goes after government employees. And today we are here to talk about the thousands and thousands of Federal employees who are doing the job every single day to keep our government going.

Who do we think keeps government going but our workers? We need to acknowledge that and honor them.

When you go to the Social Security office, for example, as I have, and when you see the Federal employees processing the paperwork, that needs to happen so that our seniors can get the benefits that they've worked hard for and that they deserve. When you go to an unemployment line, you see State workers. This is what I mean. Government employees are there, doing the jobs they need to do to enable our working people and middle class families and everyone else in our country to get the kinds of services that we pay for.

They're being scapegoated as though they're the ones who are responsible for this economic crisis. Some people refer to it now as the ``Great Recession,'' with a capital ``G'' and a capital ``R,'' as opposed to the Great Depression. So many of the stories that we hear are about people just struggling to make ends meet, including our Federal employees. They're like the rest of us. Of course there are faces to all of these Federal employees. In fact, let me just tell you about some of the Federal employees who have been acknowledged in my State for the exemplary work that they're doing.

For example, I want to talk about Sergeant Michael Schellenbach, who is a combat camera officer in charge of the Kaneohe Marine Corps Base in Hawaii. He won a Federal Leader of the Year award. He provided unparalleled customer service to prepare marines for Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom.

Warren Au won the 2010 Federal Employee of the Year award for professional, administrative and technical professions. Warren works in the Naval Facilities Engineering Command as an electrical engineer on the Far East planning team. He developed and implemented an electronic data-gathering tool to produce an updated facilities plan. The tool is now required at all Navy and Marine Corps installations, and it has greatly increased productivity and efficiency, saving taxpayers--that's all of us--a lot of money.

Bill Pursley was a 2008 Federal Mentor of the Year. He works for the Transportation Security Administration at Maui County Airports. Under Bill's guidance and leadership, over dozens of officers have been promoted to lead, supervisor and master positions. Bill's very calm and convincing demeanor has earned him the respect of airport employees and leaders, and he has had a significant impact on keeping us safe.

These are just a few of the 4.6 million Federal workers and retirees in every State in our country who have not only provided services to us over the years and who have earned their retirements, but they're continuing to, as we have referred to in so many of our committees, step up to do more with less. They have been doing that for years now, and I am proud of them. I am proud of the Federal workers in Hawaii.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

Thank you.

When we think about the kinds of resources in our country that everyone enjoys, think about our national parks. What a tremendous resource for all of us, and so many families go to all of our national parks. Guess who is there to make sure that families, individuals--all of us--have a lovely time? Who is protecting our endangered species, these national parks? We have a lot of national parks in Hawaii. In fact, you may have seen the pictures recently of one of them. We have the continuing eruption of Kilauea on the Island of Hawaii, which is part of my district.

So there are just so many areas in which we could not do without the commitment of our Federal employees. Truly, I feel as though they're getting picked on for basically political reasons, and it's unjustifiable to do that and to scapegoat our workers in that way.

Yes.

You mentioned Ms. Edwards and about exploration and about meteorologists. Well, the astronaut program, that's a Federal program. We had a wonderful astronaut from Hawaii, Ellison Onizuka, who tragically lost his life in the Challenger disaster.

This is part of what we need to do to educate all of us and the young people and our students. In fact, I was visited by a group of students in my district yesterday. They were here with the Close Up program, and were here to learn about the Federal Government and what keeps the Federal Government going. It's not just us. It's all those 4.6 million people out there who are helping.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Lane Tokita, an outstanding A.P. History teacher at Kauai High School in my district. Mr. Tokita is in Washington this week with his high school students for the Close Up Washington Civic Education Program. The Close Up Foundation is presenting him with an award for his dedication to the program over many years.

Mr. Tokita's students report that his history class is tough but fair. He instills his students with the philosophy that ``Quitting is not an option!'' I experienced first-hand Mr. Tokita's effectiveness as a teacher when I visited his class. The students impressed me with their enthusiasm and lively participation.

Mr. Tokita is a strong supporter of this program to give students a first-hand experience with democracy in our Nation's capital. Using the Close Up curriculum--tied to state history standards--Mr. Tokita 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. Tokita for his dedication to providing a well-rounded civic education for his students. I have requested to have a flag flown over the U.S. Capitol in his honor.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that would establish a

grant program to encourage the use of assistance dogs by members of our Armed Forces and veterans.

Tens of thousands of our service members and veterans are struggling to cope with physical or mental health disabilities. Assistance dogs help these men and women lead more independent lives, assisting with mobility and balance, retrieving and carrying objects, responding to sounds, getting help, and providing social interaction and companionship. Trained dogs also offer many therapeutic benefits to soldiers and veterans with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder by elevating their moods, building confidence, and reducing stress, all of which assist them in their transition back to civilian life.

Nonprofit organizations that train and provide assistance dogs to help our military personnel and veterans are receiving more and more requests. Groups throughout the country--including Hawaii Fi-Do Service Dogs in my congressional district--train and provide dogs for returning soldiers and veterans but rely on fundraising and volunteer staff to meet the growing demand.

The K-9 Companion Corps Act would provide competitive grants to build the capacity of nonprofit organizations whose mission is to address the physical and mental health needs of the men and women who have served our nation so honorably through the dogs they train and provide.

I thank my former colleague, Congressman Ron Klein of Florida, for his work on this bill last Congress and for his unwavering commitment to our military personnel, veterans, and their families.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the legislation before us, which will extend funding for our federal transportation programs through the end of this fiscal year in September.

This will be the seventh short-term extension we have passed-- hopefully this will be the last. I commend Chairmen Mica and Duncan, and Ranking Members Rahall and DeFazio, for their work on crafting this measure, and look forward to working with each of them as the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee continues its work on a long-term surface transportation bill.

Madam Speaker, this so-called ``clean extension'' of our nation's transportation programs is vitally important for the travelling public. Not only does it continue federal construction projects that we know create jobs--it also extends programs that keep our families safe on the road.

This extension gives our states and communities certainty, at least until the end of this fiscal year, with regard to critical infrastructure projects. It will also provide a level of stability for those working to improve our roads and bridges and build new transit and commercial systems--and the families that are dependent on their income.

While members of both sides of the aisle have spoken of the importance of infrastructure, to date, we have not been able to come up with a forward-looking transportation bill. We all should share a sense of urgency about getting this done. Meanwhile, without continuing the authority for the programs under this bill, more than $800 million in highway reimbursements and transit grants to states and urban areas would not be dispersed. This inaction would endanger more than 28,000 jobs nationwide.

And so, for the second time this week, we have averted catastrophe-- which begs the question, is this how we will continue on for the next two years?

This is a legitimate question, one which was raised at the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' annual meeting earlier today. These are the people who have to figure out how to complete long-term projects--and plan new ones--while we lurch forward in short increments. They live in a world where they have to think in months and years, not weeks or news cycles.

In response to a question about getting a long-term bill done, all Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood could say was: ``If we don't get something significant done this year I think it will be very difficult.'' I'd say that is an understatement.

Certainly, the irresponsible, indiscriminate, and short-sighted 24 percent cut to transportation funding contained in H.R. 1 did not inspire a great confidence. We need to do better.

Every community has transportation needs for which federal help is vital. For example, in Hawaii, we are using federal funds to expand the capacity of our ports, and to build new rail transit for our citizens. These are projects that are putting people to work now, and will pay significant dividends for our economy for years to come. These projects will help to connect people with businesses, and businesses with workers. They will help to get cars off our streets, and expand the amount of commerce that can move in and out of our islands.

Again, I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will now come together on a long-term transportation bill. This is our opportunity to show that we can do something that will be a game- changer for our economy in the 21st century. Over the few months that this bill gives us, we can spend our time wisely debating how best to direct federal dollars to help our states and cities. I hope that this is a bipartisan effort, and look forward to working with my colleagues on the Committee to make this happen.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Constance Lau for being recognized as the 2011 Woman of the Year by the Women's Council on Energy and the Environment.

As President and CEO of Hawaiian Electric Industries, Hawaii's largest public company, and Chairman of the Board of Hawaii Electric Company (which serves 95 percent of the state), Connie Lau has played a critical role in helping Hawaii--the most oil-dependent state

in the country--reduce its reliance on imported oil by investing in a clean energy future.

Under her direction, Hawaiian Electric signed a landmark agreement with the State of Hawaii so that the State could achieve 70 percent of its energy needs with clean energy by the year 2030. Since then, the company has expanded net energy metering, instituted a feed-in tariff for renewable projects, started a pilot electric vehicle program, and instituted declining block rates to encourage conservation.

In addition to being the first company to use sustainable biodiesel in a utility-scale combustion turbine, Hawaiian Electric has implemented new purchase power contracts for geothermal, photovoltaic, wind, and biomass projects.

For these and other initiatives, Connie richly deserves this distinguished national award. All of Hawaii is proud of her. Her pioneering spirit serves as an inspiration to us all.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reintroduce a bill that would convert the fourth temporary judgeship for the District of Hawaii to permanent judgeship status.

The fourth temporary judgeship for the District of Hawaii was created in 1990 by Public Law 101-650. Although the judges appointed to temporary judgeships have lifetime appointments, legislation creating temporary judgeships usually specifies that the first vacancy in the district cannot be filled after a certain date. In the 1990 bill, this time frame was determined to be ten years after each temporary judgeship was filled. That meant that Hawaii could not fill a temporary vacancy occurring after October 2004.

Currently, the District of Hawaii has four active judges. However, if any of these judges become inactive, by taking senior status or otherwise, the district will not be able to replace that judge because of the ten-year limitation, which has long passed. This would place a great burden on not only the three remaining active judges, but also on the litigants themselves, especially civil litigants. Due to the right to speedy trial, felony cases regularly bump civil trials off the calendar, leading to long delays to get to court for civil litigants. Civil cases include disputes involving personal injury, civil rights, the environment, business, and other non-criminal matters.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on this and other initiatives that will address our need for additional federal judgeships across the country.

Mahalo nui loa (thank you very much).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reintroduce the Shingles Prevention Act.

Many of us have had shingles or know of others, especially over the age of 60, who have. In 2006 a new vaccine was created that prevents occurrence of shingles or dramatically reduces the symptoms and pain of shingles. Experts agree that adults over the age of 60 should receive this immunization.

Half of us will experience shingles by the time we are 80. Shingles is a painful skin rash often accompanied by fever, headache, chills, and upset stomach. What is more pressing is that one in five shingles patients will endure post-herpetic neuralgia--severe pain lasting much longer than the rash itself. The pain can be so intolerable that patients are housebound, and there have been cases of suicide from the disease. Shingles is most common among seniors because the immune system wanes with age, making Medicare beneficiaries the best candidates for the vaccine.

Since its development in 2006, the shingles vaccine has been recommended for adults 60 years or older by the Centers for Disease Control. However, current Medicare Part D coverage of the vaccine is insufficient. Not all beneficiaries are enrolled in Part D or another drug prescription plan. More important, seniors are facing high out-of- pocket costs due to a lack of coordination among doctors, pharmacies, and Part D plans. For example, there is no established direct billing method between doctors and plans for Part D vaccines. Because of this, beneficiaries typically must pay the full price up front, which results in out-of-pocket costs that limit access to those that need the vaccine the most--our seniors.

The billing problem, the resulting low utilization of the vaccine, and costly storage requirements are enough to keep many doctors from stocking the vaccine. When doctors do not stock, beneficiaries' only alternative is to obtain the vaccine from pharmacists. But many states do not allow pharmacies to administer Part D vaccines, so the beneficiary has to take the vial from the pharmacy back to the physician office. Thus, a senior who is thinking about getting vaccinated would have to go first to the doctor's office for a consult, then to the pharmacist, then back to the doctor for the shot.

Not surprisingly, many seniors are not getting immunized against shingles. This low utilization rate contributes to the half a billion dollars of treatment costs per year and, for hundreds of thousands of seniors, many weeks spent suffering from a disease that could have been prevented. The Shingles Prevention Act will move shingles vaccine coverage to Part B--thus treating it in the same manner as the flu vaccine under Medicare, simplifying the process for physicians and beneficiaries, and lessening the cost burden for our seniors. This is a common sense and cost effective way to increase access to high quality health care for our seniors, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure its passage.

Mahalo nui loa (thank you very much).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reintroduce the Native Hawaiian Medicaid Coverage Act of 2011. This legislation is a companion to S. 36, which was introduced earlier this year by Senator Daniel K. Inouye.

This legislation would allow for 100 percent coverage under the Federal Medicaid Assistance Percent, FMAP, formula for Native Hawaiians who are Medicaid eligible and access

care from Federally Qualified Health Centers or through the Native Hawaiian Health Care System.

Native Hawaiians, like American Indians and Alaska Natives, are an indigenous, native people. Currently, states receive a 100 percent FMAP reimbursement for health care services provided through Indian Health Services facilities. The bill I am introducing today would bring parity in the treatment of our country's Native peoples.

Congress has previously recognized the unique and historical relationship between the United States and the indigenous people of Hawaii. I ask for my colleagues continued support for the health and wellbeing of Native Hawaiians.

Mahalo (thank you).

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the Chu amendment, and for the 19,000 students in Hawaii who rely on Pell grants to pay for college.

That's 22 percent of the student body at Maui College. 30 percent at the University of

Hawaii at Hilo. 17 percent at UH Manoa. 18 percent at UH West Oahu. 22 percent at Chaminade. 13 percent at Hawaii Pacific University.

The underlying bill turns a blind eye to these 19,000 students in Hawaii, and 9 million students nationwide. H.R. 1 would slash Pell grants by more than 15 percent, the largest cut in the program's history.

Investing in education is an investment in our future. Employees with a bachelor's degree earn more than $20,000 per year more than those without a degree, and in turn contribute more to the economy in taxes and spending. For low-income families struggling to make ends meet, Pell grants are a lifeline to help students pay for college.

Meanwhile, Pell grants have not kept pace with rising tuition costs. In 1979, Pell grants helped low-income students at four-year public colleges pay for 77 percent of their tuition, fees, room, and board. Today, the grant covers less than half that--just 34 percent of college expenses.

In this difficult economy, slashing investments in education like Pell is exactly the wrong move to make. The Chu amendment would restore full funding to the Pell grant program, and I urge my colleagues to adopt it.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this continuing resolution, which endangers our fragile economic recovery by throwing more Americans out of jobs. Rather than focusing on the creation and retention of jobs, this bill gives the pink slip to hundreds of thousands of Americans. Who's getting the pink slip? Nurses, teachers, police officers, and firefighters, among others. At the same time, states and counties are having to lay off these essential personnel as they struggle to balance their budgets. How will putting more people in the unemployment line create jobs? These job cuts strike at the heart of the middle class in America.

At a recent press conference in Washington DC, Speaker John Boehner's response to the job losses (later estimated at nearly 1 million jobs) caused by the bill was, ``So be it,'' in apparent resignation or indifference to the pain these cuts will cause to individuals and communities across our country.

In addition to increasing the ranks of the unemployed, the Republican leadership is making the cuts on the backs of the most vulnerable among us. At the same time, they are damaging our nation's long-term economic prospects by cutting needed investments in education, innovation, and infrastructure.

No vulnerable group is safe from the Republican cuts. Head Start is slashed by $1 billion and child care by $39 million, ending at least 50,000 jobs nationwide and ending services to more than 200,000 children. In Hawaii, newly opened Head Start classrooms serving 700 children would need to close their doors, giving these children no place to go for quality early education to prepare for success in school and in life.

This bill cuts basic K-12 education services for all low-income schools by $700 million nationwide and cuts after-school programs by $100 million. This anti-education bill also bursts students' dreams of college success, reducing Pell grants by an average of $700 for some 19,000 low-income college students in Hawaii, and Direct Loans to 30,000 Hawaii college students.

The Republicans' budget cuts would completely eliminate all Native Hawaiian Education programs. I joined with Representative Don Young of Alaska to offer an amendment to reinstate funding eligibility for Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian education programs. We worked hard to explain the importance of these programs to our colleagues, and the Young-Hirono Amendment passed 331 to 117.

In fact, this bill as introduced reflects a particular bias against Native Hawaiians in that it also eliminates funding for Native Hawaiian health care and Native Hawaiian housing programs.

The backbone of our health care system is dismantled by drastically cutting funding for community health centers. These centers, which serve the most vulnerable in our population, are cut by $1.3 billion. In my rural district, spread over 7 inhabited islands, community health centers are used by everyone in the community due to the shortage of primary care physicians. In Hawaii our network of community health centers serve nearly 127,000 patients, one-third of whom are Medicaid eligible.

H.R. 1 threatens women's health by eliminating a safety net program that provides family planning services and lifesaving preventive care to 3 million Americans every year. By eliminating funding for the Title X Family Planning Program, the only dedicated sexual and reproductive health clinic on Hawaii Island may have to close its doors. The Planned Parenthood health centers on Oahu and Maui would be forced to reduce their clinic hours.

I hope seniors in our country are taking note. This bill dramatically cuts funding available to the Social Security Administration by $1.7 billion below what they need to maintain promised service levels. Social Security already operates at very low cost. Overhead is less than 2 percent of the total budget for Social Security. The bill eliminates 3,500 jobs in the Social Security Administration and delays payment of earned benefits for hundreds of thousands of retirees, survivors, and disabled workers.

I've heard Democrats and Republicans alike acknowledge their support for infrastructure spending. Yet this Republican bill cuts funding for transportation infrastructure and housing by 24 percent compared with the President's budget. These cuts to infrastructure are the largest cuts on a percentage basis in the bill--cuts to programs that we know create jobs and improve the quality of life in our communities. These short-sighted, short-term deficits cuts will lead to long-term continuing deterioration of our infrastructure, which will cost us more to fix down the road.

Under this bill, Hawaii would lose $11 million in desperately needed funding to upgrade our sewers and wastewater treatment plants. Hawaii would also lose $5 million for new energy-efficient circulator buses recently awarded by the Federal Transit Administration.

These deep cuts in infrastructure funding are opposed by groups as diverse as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO. The Republican majority hasn't brought a single measure to the floor this Congress that will help create jobs. Instead they are focused on cutting jobs. When you cut billions from programs, you are cutting jobs. No amount of rhetoric will cover up that fact.

We should be eliminating billions in tax breaks for the oil and gas industries. Instead, the Republican Majority has cut research in energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. And because many on the other side of the aisle choose to ignore science that contradicts their preferred view of the world, the bill makes radical cuts to funding for entities such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's climate and ocean monitoring programs.

The bill also cuts funding for medical research and for small business and economic development assistance programs. These cuts will stifle innovation, limit job creation, and threaten our competitiveness in the global economy.

I've only cited a few of the short-sighted, anti-middle class, anti- senior, anti-woman, and anti-education provisions in the bill. I'll be voting no, and I urge all my colleagues to do the same. We need to focus on creating, not eliminating, jobs; on sparking, not depressing, innovation; and on investing, not disinvesting, in education for our next generation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Quayle-Broun amendment.

This amendment would strip away Davis-Bacon wage protections in Hawaii and nationwide.

Enacted in 1931, the Davis-Bacon Act ensures that workers on federal construction contracts receive at least the prevailing wage for construction jobs.

The Davis-Bacon Act ensures projects are built by skilled and experienced workers who know what they're doing. Prevailing wages and higher-skilled work result in greater productivity and lower cost.

In industries without Davis-Bacon protections, we have seen unscrupulous contractors engage in a ``race to the bottom,'' trying to undercut each other to perform shoddy work, with less-skilled workers, at sub-par wages. These projects often end up costing more in the long- run due to repairs, revisions, and delays.

Some claim that Davis-Bacon costs the federal government more. On the contrary, studies show that higher-wage workers are more productive, saving hundreds of millions of dollars in the long run.

Construction workers who build highways, homes, or buildings should be able to earn enough to feed their families, put a roof over their heads, and send their kids to college. Beyond just helping workers and their families, prevailing wages improve local economies. Workers spend their income in local businesses and pay local taxes.

Workers participate in building trades training programs and health care programs and are not dependent on benefits from other social programs. One study found that local prevailing wage law generated 2.4 times the economic benefit of the cost of the construction project.

I strongly support Davis-Bacon protections and oppose this misguided amendment. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I inadvertently voted ``no'' on the Price Amendment (#514) to H.R. 1. I meant to vote ``yes'' for the amendment, which continues waiver provisions enacted for FY2009 and 2010 that enable local communities impacted by the economic downturn to use SAFER grant funds to maintain existing firefighters, re-hire laid off firefighters, and eliminate the local match requirement. I am grateful that it passed by a strong margin despite my error.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by my colleague Congresswoman Colleen Hanabusa that would restore funding for the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program.

The Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant is an authorized program under title VIII of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self- Determination Act.

The block grant is used to carry out affordable housing activities for Native Hawaiian families who are eligible to reside on Hawaiian Home Lands, which were established in trust by the United States under the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920.

In 1903, Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalanianaole was elected to serve as Hawaii's delegate to Congress. One of his most notable achievements was the passage of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, which set aside some 200,000 acres of land for Native Hawaiians. The reason for the legislation was the landless status of so many Native Hawaiians, who were displaced by newcomers to the islands and became the most disadvantaged population in their native land. Congress passed the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, which is still in force, in recognition of its responsibility toward Native Hawaiians.

As with other indigenous people, Native Hawaiian views on land tenure were different from that of the newcomers, resulting in loss of much of the land that had been traditionally occupied and cultivated by Native Hawaiians to these newcomers.

Despite the good intentions of the Congress and the State of Hawaii, progress in meeting the goal of delivering land to native Hawaiians was slow. Most of the Hawaiian Homelands were located in areas far from jobs and infrastructure like roads and utilities, were nonexistent. There are currently 23,000 native Hawaiians on the waiting list for residential, farm or ranch lots. Some families have been on the waiting lists for decades.

I want to share the story of the Lincoln family. Aloysius Lincoln first applied for Hawaiian Home Lands in 1949. In 2006, a wait of 57 years, his daughter, Frances Segundo, claimed a lease for a Department of Hawaiian Home Lands home in Kapolei on the island of Oahu. Frances claimed the lease because her father had unfortunately passed away two years earlier. Frances herself was just a baby when her father signed up for the program.

The $13 million that the amendment restores to the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program provides the opportunity for Native Hawaiian families to live the dream of homeownership.

The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) is one of the most efficient users of funds provided under the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act. The majority of these funds have been used for infrastructure development on Hawaiian Home Lands benefiting low-income residents. DHHL has also been able to use these funds to: Assist families in applying for FHA mortgage insurance and HUD loan guarantees; operate a direct loan program to provide new housing units and improve existing structures; support local housing and housing service providers such as Habitat for Humanity; and initiate highly successful pre- and post-purchase homeownership counseling programs.

I urge my colleagues to support reinstating funding for the successful Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant Program.

Mahalo nui loa (thank you very much).

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment introduced by Congressman Ted Poe. This amendment would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from enforcing common-sense protections against carbon dioxide pollution and other greenhouse gases from big polluters.

The underlying legislation, H.R. 1, is replete with provisions like this. Instead of eliminating tax breaks for the oil and gas industries and choosing to adhere to the scientific evidence that carbon pollution is changing the climate and endangering our health and the environment, the Republican majority's continuing resolution slashes EPA's funding by almost a third and prohibits EPA from enforcing existing greenhouse gas monitoring and reporting requirements. The bill attacks the Clean Air Act directly so that EPA will be prevented from protecting public health and fighting climate change.

The Clean Air Act has a proven 40-year track record of cutting dangerous pollution to protect human health in a cost-effective manner that spurs innovation. According to EPA, the Clean Air Act prevented an estimated 843,000 asthma attacks, 18 million cases of respiratory illness among children, 672,000 cases of chronic bronchitis, 21,000 cases of heart disease, and 200,000 premature deaths.

The Clean Air Act continues to reduce air pollution and improve the health of children, seniors, and adults: the Clean Air Act has decreased lead emissions from cars by 95 percent, decreasing by 86 percent the number of children whose development is affected by lead exposure; by requiring all new diesel engines to be more than 90 percent cleaner, EPA will prevent more than 21,000 premature deaths and $160 billion in health costs every year by 2030; by phasing out the most dangerous ozone-depleting chemicals, EPA will cut the American incidences of non-melanoma skin cancer by 295 million by 2075; by launching the acid rain program, EPA has dramatically reduced soot and smog by levels that will reduce premature deaths by between 20,000 and 50,000 per year in 2010.

Since its enactment in 1970, the health benefits of the Clean Air Act have far outweighed industry's compliance costs, reducing toxic and health-threatening air pollutants by 60 percent while at the same time the economy grew by over 200 percent.

Now this legislation attempts to gut the Clean Air Act's pollution standards and repeal EPA's authority to limit health-threatening pollution in order to protect the profits of the big polluters.

It also prevents EPA from continuing to improve our health by updating its pollution standards and improving safeguards for public health. In addition, it repeals important Clean Air Act safeguards that are needed to create American clean energy jobs, reduce energy costs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and increase our economic competitiveness.

It's time for us to stand up for clean air and the health of the American people rather than work for the polluters who want to interfere with EPA's efforts to reduce life-threatening pollution and turn back the clock on air quality.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and oppose the continuing resolution.