Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1873, the Small Business Fairness in Contracting Act.

This bill creates a competitive bid process in the federal marketplace by restricting the ability of federal agencies to generate contracts that are too large for small businesses to compete effectively. Within the last 7 years, larger firms have benefited from the bundling of contracts while the total number of contracts received by small businesses has declined nationwide by 55 percent. H.R. 1873 increases the goal for small-business participation in federal contracts to at least 25 percent and requires the Small Business Administration to work with government agencies each fiscal year to establish and meet contracting goals that benefit small businesses.

Small businesses represent the overwhelming majority of businesses in Hawaii and play a vital role in economic growth for the state. H.R. 1873 will provide increased opportunities for Hawaii's small business community to compete for federal contracts that formerly were bundled and ended up going to larger out-of-state corporations.

Of course, this bill will help small businesses throughout the country compete for their fair share of federally funded projects.

I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. Speaker I rise in support of H.R. 1294, the Tomasina E. Jordon Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2006. This bill will confer long-delayed Federal recognition to the Chickahominy Indian Tribe, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe Eastern Division, the Upper Mattaponi Tribe, the Rappahannock Tribe, Inc., the Monacan Indian Nation, and Nansemond Indian Tribe.

The members of these tribes were thriving before the arrival of the first European settlers. They entered into treaties with the settlers, but as has happened all too often throughout Native American history, they lost their lands to the newcomers.

In many cases, to correct the injustice, Congress recognized its obligation to these Native Americans and funded programs benefiting them, but without Federal recognition. This bill will finally begin to make amends to these proud tribes by granting Federal recognition.

This bill will permit members enrolled as tribal members to receive benefits applicable to Indians or nations, Indian tribes or bands of Indians without regard to the existence of a reservation and regardless of the location of the residence of any tribal member on or near any Indian reservation. This is only fair. The physical location of any member should not dictate whether he or she who may be otherwise entitled to and in need of assistance, should receive benefits entitled to the Tribe.

This bill also prohibits gaming on the tribal land. It permits the Secretary of the Interior to take any land into trust for the benefit of any member of the Tribe. The bill will finally grant the protections and benefits long denied the six Indian tribes for want of Federal recognition.

The experience of these tribes is similar to that of Native Hawaiians. To correct the injustices suffered by the indigenous people of Hawaii, my distinguished colleague from Hawaii, the Honorable Neil Abercrombie, and I have introduced H.R. 505, which will lead to Federal recognition of Native Hawaiians.

We believe that the time has long passed when all indigenous people with similar histories of sovereignty lost and homelands taken are recognized and afforded the protections they deserve pursuant to Congress' plenary powers over Indian Commerce authorized by the Constitution of the United States.

I strongly urge passage of this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my fellow Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, CAPAC members, and my other colleagues in celebrating Asian Pacific American Heritage Month.

I'd like to, of course, thank Congressman Honda for organizing this special order tonight, and for his leadership shown throughout the year in his service as chairman of CAPAC.

The heritage month theme is ``Meeting the Challenges for Asian Pacific Americans.'' The APA community has

come a long way since the days when laws excluded us from coming to this country, barred us from many places, public places, and worse, interned us in camps solely because of our ethnic heritage.

Nationwide, we are now 14 million strong, and in the next 30 years the APA population is expected to double to about 8 percent of the entire U.S. population.

Because of our history of labor immigration and our indigenous island population, Hawaii has had a head start in terms of political representation. Our APA communities have lived and worked in our islands since the mid-1800s, when the first Chinese laborers were imported to work in the sugarcane fields. Since 2000, three of our communities, the Okinawans, Koreans, and the Filipinos, have celebrated their centennial anniversaries of arrival to the United States and to Hawaii.

Hawaii produced the first Governors in the Nation of Japanese and Filipino ancestry, George Ariyoshi and Ben Cayetano; the first Native Hawaiian Governor, John Waihee; the first Asian American Senators, Hiram Fong and Daniel Inouye; the first Senator of Native Hawaiian ancestry, Daniel Akaka; the first Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander Member of Congress, Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalanianaole; and the first woman of color to serve in Congress, Patsy Takemoto Mink. And I am privileged to have served as Hawaii's Lieutenant Governor, becoming the first immigrant woman of Asian ancestry elected to statewide office and to be able to continue my service here as the first immigrant born in Japan serving in Congress.

Asian and Pacific Islander Members of Congress currently number only nine, including Eni Faleomavaega, our delegate from American Samoa. Also with me in the House are Congress Members Mike Honda and Doris Matsui, Oregon's David Wu, Virginia's Robert Scott, and Louisiana's Bobby Jindals. In the Senate we have Hawaii's two senior statesmen, Senators Daniel Inouye and Daniel Akaka.

Although the successes of our APA community over the years have been many, there is another side to our story that is not often discussed. While more Asians have college degrees than any other group in the country, we also have more people who have not graduated from high school compared with other ethnic groups. And while APAs have higher incomes, the U.S. Census counts 1.3 million Asian and Pacific Islanders living in poverty. There are still many wrongs to be righted. Some of them are decades old.

On March 1, 2007, I reintroduced the Filipino Veterans Family Reunification Act, H.R. 1287, a companion bill to S. 671, introduced by Senator Akaka. It will accelerate the immigration process for the sons and daughters of the Filipino veterans who fought with our American troops in World War II. I am also a cosponsor of the Filipino Veterans Equity Act, H.R. 760, to fulfill our promise of full veterans' benefits to those Filipino soldiers.

I know that questions have been raised about the cost of carrying out our obligation to the Filipino World War II veterans. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the cost of enacting H.R. 760 will be $1 billion over a 10-year period. While this is a large sum, it is worth noting that the United States spends approximately $9 billion each month in the war in Iraq.

Challenges are also facing our Native Hawaiian population. The desire for self-determination by the indigenous people of my home State has been ignored for far too long by the Federal Government. Native Hawaiians remain the only indigenous group in our country still awaiting Federal recognition similar to the recognition Congress has granted to American Indians and Alaska Natives. H.R. 505, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, would set up a process for Native Hawaiians to organize a government entity.

By continuing to work together, I am hopeful that we will be able to meet these challenges as we have overcome others in the past. This month Washington, D.C. is hosting the Eighth Pacific Islands Conference of Leaders, PICL. The triennial PICL brings together the heads of government and senior officials from the Pacific, including Hawaii and the U.S. Pacific Territories. This is the first time that the group has met in Washington, D.C., and it is quite an opportunity for all of us here to find common ground on issues facing the Pacific region and our world.

In closing, I would again like to thank Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus Chairman Honda for allowing us this opportunity to reflect upon how far our APA community has come and yet, of course, remember how much further our community has to go.

Mahalo and aloha.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce with Congressman Abercrombie a companion measure to legislation that will soon be introduced by Senators Inouye and Akaka 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. Civil cases include disputes involving personal injury, civil rights, the environment, business, and other non-criminal matters.

The Judicial Conference of the United States has recommended that Hawaii's fourth temporary judgeship be converted to permanent status. The conversion is included in the 2007 Judicial Conference Judgeship Biennial Recommendation. In its 2003 recommendation, the Judicial Conference stated that the District of Hawaii weighted caseloads per judgeship will be over 600 should that district lose a judgeship. As the caseload for the district has since increased, it is imperative that Congress act on this matter as quickly as possible.

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.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 296, I was attending a hearing on S. 310, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007 and missed this vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007. I would like to thank the chief sponsor of this legislation, Congressman Conyers, for his work and dedication in bringing this bipartisan bill to the floor for debate.

H.R. 1592 will strengthen existing Federal hate crimes laws in two meaningful ways. First, the bill removes the requirement that victims of violent bias-motivated crimes be engaged in a federally protected activity, such as voting, when the crime is committed. Federal entities would then be able to provide technical and grant support for the hate crimes investigations of State and local law enforcement agencies. Second, the bill provides for a more comprehensive definition of hate crimes to include those motivated by gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

In 2005, the FBI documented 7,163 hate crimes directed against institutions and individuals because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, or disability. These statistics were gathered from 12,417 law enforcement agencies across the country. Yet it is not the frequency or number of crimes alone that distinguish these acts of violence from other crimes.

We know that hate crimes are more than individual assaults--they send shock waves and fear throughout a whole community and segments of our diverse population. Hate violence is also a message crime and the messages are clear: ``know your place'' and ``your kind is not welcome here.'' Hate crimes clearly pose a serious threat to our Nation's security and the very values upon which our country were founded.

As an original cosponsor of H.R. 1592, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of final passage.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Improving Head Start Act of 2007. Over and over again, rigorous evaluations have shown that Head Start and Early Head Start works. It improves the lives of our neediest children and families.

I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the bill at hand, as it makes several positive changes to the Head Start program. It authorizes $450 million new dollars to the program, which is enough to provide up to 10,000 new spots for children. It prioritizes program improvement by increasing funding for teacher and staff salaries and professional development. It suspends the National Reporting System, which is a flawed testing system that does not adequately assess this comprehensive system.

Science has shown that providing a quality early education experience leads to healthy brain development that prepares children for success in school, as well as later in life. Access to high quality early education, as well as to wrap around, comprehensive services, really sets the foundation for children and their parents.

I urge my colleagues to support this strong, bipartisan bill. It will directly improve the lives of many, many children and families.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to ask for my colleagues' support for this amendment, to improve Early Head Start.

The amendment revises the training and technical assistance system by ensuring that these services are provided by entities with specific expertise in infant and toddler development. It also directs at least 50 percent of training and technical assistance funds directly to the grantees. These are the people on the ground working with children who are best able to prioritize their training needs for the purpose of program improvement.

In our hearing on the bill in the Committee on Education and Labor, we heard that Head Start providers are not getting the assistance they need under the current system. One program director said that it had been 10 months since she saw her technical assistance specialist.

The current system centralized control often results in the assistance specialist spending more time filling out forms for their supervisors than directly helping the program directors in the field. The bill we are debating today solves this problem for the Head Start program serving preschoolers by directing the responsibility for training and technical assistance responsibility into the State-based system that can better meet the needs of the local providers.

Early Head Start directors experience similar problems, and, therefore, should get a similar solution. This amendment provides that solution and, furthermore, requires that these State-based technical assistance providers include individuals with infant and toddler expertise available to work with Early Head Start providers.

Rigorous evaluations show that the Early Head Start program has made a positive difference in the lives of participating children and their families. This bill expands the Early Head Start program, which currently serves only 3 percent of eligible infants and toddlers. And as Early Head Start expands, we must ensure that individual programs have the knowledge and skills to provide positive outcomes for participants. This amendment will do that, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Ka`u Coast Preservation Act, a bill directing the National Park Service to assess the feasibility of designating coastal lands on the Ka`u Coast of the island of Hawaii between Kapao`o Point and Kahuku Point as a unit of the National Park System.

Late last year, the National Park Service issued a reconnaissance report that made a preliminary assessment of whether the Ka`u Coast would meet the National Park Service's demanding criteria as a resource of national significance.

The reconnaissance survey concluded that ``based upon the significance of the resources in the study area, and the current integrity and intact condition of these resources, a preliminary finding of national significance and suitability can be concluded.'' The report goes on to recommend that Congress proceed with a full resource study of the area.

Although under significant development pressure, the coastline of Ka`u is still largely unspoiled. The study area contains significant natural, geological, and archaeological features. The northern part of the study area is adjacent to Hawaii Volcanoes National Park and contains a number of noteworthy geological features, including an ancient lava tube known as the Great Crack, which the National Park Service has expressed interest in acquiring in the past.

The study area includes both black and green sand beaches as well as a significant number of endangered and threatened species, most notably the endangered hawksbill turtle (at least half of the Hawaiian population of this rare sea turtle nests within the study area), the threatened green sea turtle, the highly endangered Hawaiian monk seal, the endangered Hawaiian hawk, native bees, the endangered and very rare Hawaiian orangeblack damselfly (the largest population in the state), and a number of native endemic birds. Humpback whales and spinner dolphins also frequent the area. The Ka`u Coast also boasts some of the best remaining examples of native coastal vegetation in Hawaii.

The archaeological resources related to ancient Hawaiian settlements within the study area are also very impressive. These include dwelling complexes, heiau (religious shrines), walls, fishing and canoe houses or sheds, burial sites, petroglyphs, water and salt collection sites, caves, and trails. The Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail runs through the study area.

The Ka`u Coast is a truly remarkable area: its combination of natural, archaeological, cultural, and recreational resources, as well as its spectacular viewscapes, are an important part of Hawaii's and our Nation's natural and cultural heritage. I believe a full feasibility study, which was recommended in the reconnaissance survey, will confirm that the area meets the National Park Services high standards as an area of national significance.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of H.R. 1538, the Wounded Warrior Assistance Act, which will help correct the unconscionable deficiencies exposed by the Washington Post at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. H.R. 1538 will improve the delivery of medical services to our wounded warriors who have done all that we have

asked of them. We now must honor our commitment to them to care for them when they are injured.

H.R. 1538 provides the basic services we would have expected for our wounded service personnel such as readily available case managers and advocates to assist incapacitated patients receive appropriate care, improved training of health care professionals and better monitoring of out-patients to ease the transition to the VA medical care system. The Walter Reed experience showed that we cannot rely on the current system to provide these basic services and care.

I am particularly pleased with the attention we will finally pay to the mental injuries, such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, that can be as crippling and incapacitating to our soldiers and veterans as physical injuries.

When I spoke on House Concurrent Resolution 63 opposing the President's surge, I mentioned CPT Lisa Blackman, a clinical psychologist, who cared for soldiers who suffered devastating emotional and mental harm inflicted while serving in Iraq and chronicled their troubling and heart-breaking torment in the book, Operation Homecoming.

These brave troops, who suffered severe physical as well as mental injuries, shamefully did not receive proper treatment after faithfully serving their country. H.R. 1538 properly recognizes the sacrifices our troops have made and provides the long overdue care and medical services our troops should properly expect and deserve from their government.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and my colleague for yielding time.

I rise in strong support of H.R. 835, the Hawaiian Homeownership Opportunity Act of 2007 and ask for my colleagues' support of the bill.

The Act assists the State of Hawaii's Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, DHHL, to provide opportunities for homeownership for low-income native Hawaiians. The bill in no way addresses the question of whether or not Native Hawaiians should be recognized as a sovereign entity akin to Alaska Natives or American Indians.

During debate on this bill last Wednesday, no Member came to the floor to speak in opposition to the bill. In fact, the gentleman from Arizona, who managed the time, expressed support for the bill.

Unfortunately, either during the debate or afterward, e-mails were sent to Members containing at least two erroneous assertions: first, that this bill is unconstitutional and, second, that this bill ``would confer on Native Hawaiians an arrangement like that between the Federal Government and American Indian tribes.'' Opponents then compounded the error by citing the Rice v. Cayetano voting rights Supreme Court decision in support of their broad assertions.

As to the first assertion, the constitutionality of any measure must be decided by the courts; and, clearly, the courts have not opined on the constitutionality of this bill. As to the second assertion, there is nothing in the bill that speaks to creating a political relationship between Native Hawaiians and the Federal Government akin to the relationship between the Federal Government and American Indian tribes.

This bill, which promotes homeownership, a goal that all of us can support in bipartisan fashion, has been targeted for defeat by opponents who are misreading the bill as well as case law.

I was a member of the Cayetano administration in Hawaii and sat in the Supreme Court when arguments in the Rice case were heard. It may interest some of you to know that one of the lawyers arguing the State of Hawaii's case was John Roberts, who is now Chief Justice of our Supreme Court.

The central issue in the Rice v. Cayetano case was the narrow question of whether the State of Hawaii could hold an election for trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs where only Native Hawaiians could vote. In holding that the State could not so limit these elections, the majority opinion of the Court deliberately avoided the question of whether or not Native Hawaiians deserved the same right of self-determination granted to American Indians and Alaska Natives.

Nothing in the Rice decision holds that programs that benefit Native Hawaiians are unconstitutional. The majority court decision did not call into question the trust relationship between the U.S. Government and the Native Hawaiian people. It did not strike down the Office of Hawaiian Affairs or any other program benefiting Native Hawaiians as unconstitutional.

While the entire Hawaii congressional delegation, Hawaii's Governor, who happens to be a Republican, and the Hawaii legislature supports self-determination for Native Hawaiians, that is not the subject of the bill before us today. My colleague and I have introduced H.R. 505, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007, also known as the Akaka bill. We can discuss the merits of self-determination for Native Hawaiians when and if the Congress considers that bill.

The bill before us today provides assistance to a limited group of Native Hawaiians, those designated as beneficiaries under the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1921. That bill, in recognition of the desperate poverty and displacement from the land of Native Hawaiians, established a homesteading program to place eligible Native Hawaiians, or those with at least 50 percent Hawaiian blood, on lands in Hawaii designated for that purpose. The law was passed at the urging of the Territory of Hawaii's delegate to Congress, Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalanianaole. Some 200,000 acres were set aside for the purpose of providing Native Hawaiians with land. This 1921 Act of Congress has never been challenged in the Supreme Court in the last 86 years.

Despite the good intentions of the Congress, 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. Many individuals were on the waiting list for more than 30 years. The Hawaiian Homelands Homeownership Act of 2000 has provided the Department of Hawaiian Homelands with much-needed resources to expand opportunities for homeownership among low-income Native Hawaiians. Especially critical has been the ability to use these funds to develop the infrastructure that makes placing homes on these properties possible.

Because the issue of Native Hawaiian rights as a native people lies at heart of the opposition of this bill, I would like to quote attorneys H. Christopher Bartolomucci, Viet Dinh, and Neal Katyal, who stated in a February, 2007, legal document prepared for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs:

``Congressional legislation dealing with indigenous groups is political, not racial, in character and therefore is neither discriminatory nor unconstitutional. Rice v. Cayetano specifically declined to address whether `Native Hawaiians have a status like that of Indians in organized tribes' and `whether Congress may treat Native Hawaiians as it does the Indian tribes'.''

As previously mentioned, we can and should have the debate on whether or not Native Hawaiians should enjoy the rights to self-determination given to other Native American groups when that bill is squarely before us in H.R. 505. Native Hawaiians deserve no less.

This bill before us today simply provides Native Hawaiians who are eligible for homesteads under the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act passed by Congress with the financing tools to allow them to realize for their families the dream of homeownership which otherwise would be available to very few of them.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mahalo nui loa.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 42nd Anniversary of Maui Economic Opportunity, Inc. (MEO), which was chartered as a community action agency on March 22, 1965, by Federal mandate under the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964.

The motto of MEO is ``Helping People. Changing Lives.'' And for these past 42 years, MEO has maintained a successful record of service by providing basic tools for living, for earning, for self-reliance, and for community involvement.

MEO has initiated many important programs on the Valley Isle, which include specialized bus transportation for seniors, persons with disabilities, and youth; Head Start; Enlace Hispano; community reintegration of prison former inmates; micro-enterprise loans; business education for low income entrepreneurs; employment training and placement programs; Low Income Home Energy Assistance; and energy conservation and home energy assistance for low-income persons. Most impressively, MEO is able to serve all three islands that comprise the County of Maui: Maui, Lanai, and Molokai.

MEO is one of only a handful of agencies--out of over 1,000 community action agencies nationwide--selected by the National Community Action Partnership to receive an Agency of Excellence Award, highlighting superior administrative operations and program excellence. This translates into advocacy and outstanding services tailored to the needs of the Maui community.

I would like to extend a sincere mahalo nui loa (thank you very much) to the staff of MEO for their hard work and dedication. May the next four decades prove to be as successful.

Mr. Speaker, the majority of Americans do not support the President on Iraq. Yet he persists.

Our caucus is united in our desire to end this war and bring our troops home safely despite our genuine disagreements as to how and when to bring this about. Within this disagreement, we reflect the broad spectrum of opinion in our country. Yet, as Members of Congress, we must take action to change the trajectory of this war, to come closer to the goal of ending the war.

By setting deadlines for the President to meet his own articulated benchmarks, this bill places us firmly on that path.

This bill is not perfect. There will be ``no'' votes because there are deadlines and ``no'' votes because the deadlines are too distant. The ``perfect'' bill that all of us can support will not materialize and we will be no closer to ending this war.

At the same time, until their safe return, we must support our troops and provide them with the equipment and protective gear they need while they are in harm's way.

With this bill, Congress for the first time since the war began is not handing the President a blank check or rubber stamping his failed conduct of this war.

I strongly urge passage of this bill.

I thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 835, the Hawaiian Homeownership Opportunity Act, which reauthorizes the Hawaiian Home Lands Homeownership Act of 2000. The act assists the State of Hawaii's Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, or DHHL, to provide opportunities for homeownership for low-income Native Hawaiians.

In 1921, Congress passed the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act with the purpose of establishing a homesteading program to place eligible Native Hawaiians on lands in Hawaii designated for such purpose. The law was passed at the urging of the Territory of Hawaii's Delegate to Congress, Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalanianaole. Some 200,000 acres were set aside for the purpose of providing Native Hawaiians with land.

With the passage of the Statehood Act of 1959, the control and administration of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act was transferred to the newly formed State of Hawaii. The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands was created in 1960 to administer the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act. The mission of the Department is to ``manage the Hawaiian Home Lands trust effectively and to develop and deliver land to Native Hawaiians.''

Despite the good intentions of the Congress, progress of meeting the goal of delivering land to Native Hawaiians was slow. Most of the Hawaiian Home Lands were located in areas far from jobs, and infrastructure such as roads and utilities were nonexistent. Many individuals were on waiting lists for more than 30 years.

The Hawaiian Home Lands Home Ownership Act of 2000 has provided the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands with much-needed resources to expand opportunities for home ownership among low-income Native Hawaiians. Especially critical has been the ability to use these funds to develop the infrastructure that makes placing homes on these properties possible.

I urge my colleagues to support reauthorization of this important program, and I thank the Chairs, Barney Frank and Maxine Waters, for their leadership in bringing this bill to a vote.

Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor of H.R. 400, introduced by my colleague from Hawaii, the Honorable Neil Abercrombie, which seeks to prohibit war profiteering, I support H.R. 1362 which champions the same goals.

At a time of war, when the lives of Americans are put at risk, when the limited resources of the Nation are being expended and when programs serving millions of Americans are being cut back, no corporation or person should ever be allowed to misuse, waste or misappropriate Federal tax dollars. Unfortunately, due to mismanagement, incompetence and sweetheart deals, and lack of oversight, certain U.S. corporations and their subsidiaries apparently have blatantly over-charged government agencies, engaged in wasteful practices and committed allegedly fraudulent acts that have resulted in the virtual disappearance of billions of dollars.

Examples of American corporations padding expenses then charging an administrative fee on top of the overpriced goods and services have been well-documented. Documentaries such as ``Iraq for Sale'' chronicle a chilling story of unchecked waste, demoralization of our troops from shoddy services provided by contractors and shameless acts of corporate misconduct.

It is shocking that, in some cases, it's all legal. Without reasonable restrictions on contractor spending and practices on no-bid and cost-plus contracts and lack of enforcement of existing law, there is no incentive to provide goods and services to the government at the least cost and with the greatest efficiency. Indeed, the current practices foster and encourage waste and corruption, as the dismal track record in Iraq of defense contractors demonstrate. Just one corporation, Halliburton, has disputed charges amounting to over a billion dollars.

This bill minimizes the use of no-bid contracts, promote the use of cost effective fixed-price contracts and limit the duration of no-bid contracts, which must be awarded under emergency conditions, to one year. This bill allows the awarding of no-bid contracts which cannot be delayed but require re-bidding when the emergency has elapsed. Public disclosure of the reasons for using no-bid contracts and overcharging will promote transparency and expose improper contracting practices. Fixed price, rather than open-ended cost-plus, contracts will encourage efficiency and minimize unrestricted spending by contractors.

H.R. 1362 will go a long way to curb unchecked abuse and overcharging, slipshod accounting practices and lack of accountability. It will give government procurement managers the authority to control wasteful and fraudulent contractor practices, as well as be governed by stricter ethical guidelines to regulate the procurement managers' own behavior.

Until now, there has been no effective congressional oversight since the war began and no effective laws to rein in wasteful, corrupt and, in fact, unpatriotic behavior. Billions have been lost in this war, while critical programs in education, health, environment, alternate energy and other domestic needs have been unnecessarily slashed.

This legislation will help correct this unacceptable situation. I commend Chairman Waxman and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform for this important improvement in our Federal contracting laws.

Madam Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity to express my support for H.R. 720 and my strong opposition to the amendment that seeks to remove Davis-Bacon wage protections from the bill. Addressing the Nation's urgent wastewater infrastructure needs by strengthening and recapitalizing the Clean Water State Revolving Fund is critically important. Retaining the requirement that workers be paid the local prevailing wage will help ensure that these projects yield the greatest benefit to the communities they are meant to help.

Davis-Bacon not only guarantees that workers receive a fair wage; it helps ensure the quality of the work because it removes the incentive for hiring less qualified workers for a job. Paying prevailing wages also means that businesses and workers in the community where the work is taking place have a fair shot at getting the job and are less likely to be undercut by contractors who bid lower but then cut corners. A well-built project at a fair price should be our goal--not the cheapest possible job where workers' qualifications and quality of work may be compromised.

I want to congratulate Chairman Oberstar on moving this critical bill through the committee and to the floor in such a timely fashion. I am very proud to be a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and to be able to tell my constituents that help in upgrading our wastewater systems is on the way.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chair, my amendment will add another allowable use of funds under section 103, Watershed Pilot Projects, to assist communities in developing integrated water resource plans for the coordinated management and protection of surface water, ground water and storm water resources on a watershed or subwatershed basis. The amendment does not add to the cost of the bill; it simply provides another option for communities in use of the grants funds.

It is important that communities look at the inner relationship between each of these water systems when devising management and protection plans. Management of storm water can certainly have an impact on the quality of surface waters, and the quality of surface water has an effect on the quality and safety of ground water.

This approach is very much in line with Hawaiian traditions of land management. The traditional Hawaiian land management unit, the ahupua'a, goes from the top of the mountain to the sea. Ancient Hawaiians understood that what happened on the mountain would affect resources at lower elevations, in coastal areas, and even in the ocean. The watershed model of natural resource management is a modern equivalent of the Hawaiian ahupua'a system.

It is important that we move to a more holistic way of looking at how our water systems interact. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment to provide communities with an opportunity to develop such integrated plans.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, on the first of this month, I reintroduced the Filipino Veterans Family Reunification Act (H.R. 1287), which will provide for the expedited reunification of the families of our Filipino World War II veterans.

This body has many times heard accounts of the bravery of the Filipino veterans: how they fought shoulder to shoulder with American servicemen; how they sacrificed for the same just cause. For too long, we have ignored the promise we made to those men to provide benefits and care equal to that provided to our own soldiers.

As the House prepares for debate on comprehensive immigration reform, let us remember the broken promises made to our Filipino World War II veterans and provide for a meaningful way to make amends by expediting the immigration petitions of their sons and daughters.

I would like to submit into the Congressional Record an article that recently appeared in the Washington Post that humanizes the intent of my bill.

[From the Washington Post, Mar. 4, 2007]

Hope for Amends to Filipino Immigrants

(By N.C. Aizenman)

Amid the wrangling over immigration reform, virtually

everyone in Congress appears to agree on one point: Filipino-

born veterans who fought alongside U.S. troops during World

War II deserve a break.

Denied the right to immigrate to the United States until

1990, they came hoping that their children could follow them

here later, just as other groups have done. But the adult

children have been required to wait twice as long--up to 16

years--as anyone else. With the veterans often too old and

sick to travel home, many have died while waiting to be

reunited with their families.

Now, after several longtime backers have risen to key

positions in Congress, Filipino American advocates are

hopeful that legislation will be pushed through to exempt the

veterans' children from the immigration delay. They also are

optimistic about a potentially more controversial bill that

would grant Filipino veterans military pensions.

About 5,000 veterans in the United States would stand to

benefit from a change in immigration provisions, and an

additional 10,000 in the Philippines could be eligible for

pensions.

To many in the 2-million-strong Filipino American

community, the issue represents a chance to cement their

political identity in a nation where they have long felt

invisible, even though Filipinos rank second, behind

Mexicans, in the number of immigrants living in the United

States.

``Historically, we Filipinos have always been looked down

on as your little brown brothers--as these acquiescent people

who would just accept anything Uncle Sam would do to them,''

said Jon Melegrito, communications director of the National

Federation of Filipino American Associations. ``This is about

asserting who we are as a people and how we served this

country. . . . It's a call to action to stop acting like

colonial slaves and to start acting like first-class

citizens.''

The effort builds on an association with the United States

that dates to 1898, when the United States acquired the

Philippines from Spain after winning the Spanish-American

War.

Laws and discriminatory practices against all Asian

immigrants kept Filipino numbers in the United States low

through the first half of the 1900s. But in the Philippines,

many residents were taught English and raised to think of

themselves as something akin to Americans.

Celestino Almeda, 90, a veteran who lives in Alexandria,

remembered that the director of his elementary school in

Manila led students in a pledge of allegiance to the American

flag every morning.

``We also celebrated all the holidays: Washington's

birthday, Armistice Day,'' Almeda said. ``In our mind, it was

like America was our mother country.''

When Japan invaded the Philippines in 1941, more than

200,000 Filipinos joined Americans in waging a fierce

resistance, enduring such horrors as the Bataan Death March

and the grueling guerrilla campaign that followed.

Technically, the Filipino fighters were under overall U.S.

command. But within months of the Allied victory, Congress

stripped most of them of their rights as foreign veterans of

U.S. forces--including the opportunity to become U.S.

citizens--on the grounds that the Philippines was about to be

granted independence.

Even so, the Philippines continued its close affiliation

with the United States. Thousands of Filipinos joined the

U.S. Navy, which until recently had major bases there. By

1970, there were more Filipinos in the U.S. Navy than in the

Philippine Navy.

And, after 1965, when Congress repealed the nationality

quota system that had practically prohibited Asians from

immigrating, hundreds of thousands of Filipinos streamed in.

Ranging from unskilled workers and nannies to nurses and

professionals who came in on occupational preference visas,

the new arrivals immediately formed social, cultural and

professional organizations. Before long, they were rising to

prominent positions in government, unions and the military.

Several won elected office, including in Prince George's

County, where a sizable community settled.

Yet when it came to turning their clout into political

activism on behalf of Filipino American causes, many of the

immigrants hesitated, said Bing Cardenas Branigin, 50, a

former regional chairman of the Filipino American federation.

``There was this sense that you shouldn't make trouble,

that you shouldn't contradict the government,'' she said.

``You should just pay your taxes and send your kids to school

and keep quiet.''

That began to change in the mid-1970s when anger spread

over the repressive policies of the Filipino president,

Ferdinand

Marcos. As much as their opposition to Marcos galvanized the

Filipino American community, it also caused rifts with those

who supported Marcos.

After Marcos was ousted, community leaders looked to

refocus their newfound energy on a more unifying issue. The

fight for veterans' equity was a natural choice.

Since then, the veterans have won some of the benefits they

lost after the war. Most notably, in 1990, Congress granted

Filipino World War II veterans the same opportunity to

naturalize offered to all other foreign nationals who served

in the U.S. armed forces.

But the Filipino veterans remain ineligible for a military

pension, forcing many of the more than 24,000 elderly

veterans who became U.S. citizens after 1990 to live off food

stamps and Supplemental Security Income payments.

Joaquin Tejada, 84, a former guerrilla fighter who survived

two years resisting the Japanese from jungle hideouts, said

he now struggles to get by with his $545 monthly SSI check.

The rent for the two-bedroom apartment he shares with another

Filipino World War II veteran in Columbia Heights takes $275.

``By the end of the month, it's hard to buy even basic

food,'' said Tejada, who proudly sported an American flag tie

during an interview.

Then there is the l6-year wait veterans face if they wish

to bring over their adult children, an unintended consequence

of the 1965 law lifting the quotas that had prevented most

Asians from immigrating.

In their place, Congress introduced a complicated system

meant to offer every country the same number of family

reunification visas. But because Filipino applicants far

outnumber the yearly slots allotted to them, they face the

longest delays--22 years to sponsor an adult brother or

sister, for instance, compared with 11 years for applicants

of most other nationalities.

Candida Romulo, 72, said she and her husband, Bayani, a

veteran who became a lawyer in Manila, would not have

naturalized and moved to Oxon Hill had they known that the

wait to sponsor their grown children would be so long.

``We did it because we wanted to give them the

opportunities of living in this country. It was going to be

our gift to them,'' Romulo said during an interview in a

living room crammed with photographs of her four children.

Soon after the couple's arrival, Bayani developed a medical

condition requiring frequent dialysis, making visits to the

Philippines impossible. Because of their pending residency

applications, his children were unable to get visas to visit

him.

When Bayani suffered a severe stroke in September, his

eldest son wasn't able to relay his final words to his father

over the phone before he died.

``The receiver couldn't reach his bed in the ICU,'' Candida

Romulo said. ``So I told my husband, `Your son says that he

loves you very much and that he's so proud that you are his

father.' My husband couldn't speak, but I could tell that he

understood, because there were tears in his eyes.''

Now Romulo worries that her son may never gain entry to the

United States, because if a sponsor dies while the visa

application is pending, there is a chance that the

application will be annulled.

But she said she is still praying that Congress will pass

the legislation for the sake of those veterans who remain

alive.

``If that happens, I know my husband will be very happy

about it, even if he is already in heaven,'' she said.