Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Look, we are down here on the floor, it is empty. Maybe some folks are listening in their offices. I hope they are. I hope at least some of the staff, some folks may be paying attention.

Our problem here is very, very simple. Over and over again our colleagues will say to us, well, I got out of this okay, or we have resolved that issue. I am one of those folks. I can say that. I have had people come up and say to me, well, why are you bothering? Pearl Harbor made it out of there.

Why was it taken up in the first place? I will tell you why. It is politics. This has nothing to do with whether or not there is some rational process that has been undertaken, and everybody in here knows it. For once, can we not come down on this floor and actually vote the way all of us really understand where our responsibilities are?

Pearl Harbor got brought up for a very simple reason. They were going to close a facility up in Maine, and the people in Maine in their panic said, do not take us, take Pearl Harbor instead. They started comparing some naval apples, some shipyard apples with some shipyard oranges, and they came up with, well, go get Pearl Harbor. It had nothing to do with it. I did not come back and say, no, no, no, not us; go back to Maine, go get them. What kind of a process is that where we try to devour each other? I said, let us keep all of them open. We need every shipyard facility that we can get in this country.

We are going to be going back out to Guam soon because of what is taking place in the Pacific right now, and having to recapitulate everything that got put under the water out there in Guam, billions of dollars is going to have to be put back into Guam in order for us to be able to protect and project our strategic interests in the Pacific.

We are under a review right now in the Armed Services Committee, and we do not even have the courage of our own convictions under our own jurisdictions in our committees.

It is not that I am right or Mr. LaHood is right or Mr. Hobson is wrong or right, or Mr. Taylor. That is not the issue. The issue is are we meeting our responsibilities here? We are

constantly admonished that no sacrifice is too great. We are constantly admonished that we have to honor the sacrifices that are being made by our fighting men and women all over the world right now. Yet we cringe from our own responsibilities as Members of Congress to meet those responsibilities and obligations with regard to bases.

Now, I have been told over and over again, well, that is all well and good, but people are going to come down here, and you are going to lose anyway. It happens occasionally some people come down and say, you know, I was going to vote the other way. Let us, for once, come down here, and I make this appeal out there to anybody who is thinking about coming to the floor. Vote for Mr. LaHood's recommendation.

We are not down here just to hear ourselves. When you come over here, search your conscience, and, for once, let us live up to what people expect of us in this Congress. For once let us not fulfill some stereotype that we are just going to roll over because we managed to make it out the door. That is not what we are here for.

If this is just a job to you, then do not run again. This is a calling. This is a vocation. It is supposed to be. That is the way I feel about it, and I know that is the way most Members feel about it. They want to be able to look in the mirror at night and recognize somebody with a little bit of integrity and walk into their homes justified.

If we are going to justify our job, everybody knows in their heart that we should not be voting for this, regardless of our good friends being on it, like Mr. Hansen and Mr. Bilbray, for example, who are colleagues and personal friends to many of us here. It is not a question of whether they did their job or did not do their job; it is whether we are doing our job, and we are meeting our obligations.

So I appeal to everybody on their way over here. Let us vote for Ray LaHood's resolution, and let us do the right thing by ourselves and the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, the spokesperson for the Pentagon in Baghdad today indicated that anyone who even comments on the fact that

2,000 fighting men and women have died on behalf of the United States in Iraq, anyone who even comments on this, is undermining morale, should not even be allowed to make a comment unless they will be designated as having a political agenda. He went on to state that anyone commenting on the fact that 2,000 fighting men and women have died in Iraq in our name, that anyone who even comments on that at this stage is not entitled to regard themselves as being truly a patriotic American by implication. He went on to say that this does not even rise to the level of a story.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I bet it was a story to the parents and loved ones of the fighting man who died No. 2,000. This is a benchmark, yes, a benchmark of the failure and our failure here in the Congress to come to grips with what the word ``sacrifice'' really means.

We are not sacrificing in this country. We are watching it on TV. We are adding it up. We are looking at it, observing it, and not really understanding our obligation and our responsibility to the true sacrifice of these fighting men and women.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Gerald K. Sumida as he retires after serving nearly 23 years as Program Director of the Hawaii Senior Companion Program (SCP).

Gerald's career with the Hawaii state government began in July 1975, where he worked in the then Corrections Division and the Adult Services Unit of the then Department of Social Services and Housing. On March 16, 1983, he began his tenure with SCP and has dedicated his time and compassion in helping improve the lives of our beloved kupuna or elders. Under the direction of Gerald, the SCP and the Respite Companion Service Program (RCSP) have gained the recognition and respectability in the aging community.

Through Gerald's guidance the Senior Companion Program has expanded its senior companion services to include Oahu, Hawaii, Maui, Molokai, Lanai, and Kauai. Gerald's tireless efforts have provided Hawaii the opportunity to be continually blessed with two federally funded programs providing much needed services to the frail elderly population. Through Gerald's foresight, the SCP and RCSP have continued to improve the quality of life for thousands of frail elderly individuals, and the RCSP has provided hundreds of its participants the opportunity for unsubsidized employment as ``older workers'' in today's workforce.

Gerald's gentle and compassionate nature has given many elderly low- income individuals, with limited resources and command of

the English language, hope and encouragement to become productive seniors in the community. He will truly be missed at the Hawaii Senior Companion Program, but I believe that he will remain an active member of the community. Mahalo nui loa for all of your hard work, Gerald! Aloha and Imua!

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

When we talk about all the Members from California, occasionally some Members there think the western-most county is Hawaii, of California, but I think those of us either from California, the far west in general, and even further west, out in Hawaii, have seldom, if ever, complained about having to make the votes in late afternoon on a Monday or a Tuesday or a Thursday or whatever. But I would just plead for this, and I appreciate the gentleman's yielding to me, but if the gentleman could give those of us west of the Mississippi the opportunity to come and vote, say after 4:30, or about 4:30 or 5, we can do it.

Other than that, it really changes the entire day and night, in my instance the night before, because I come directly from the plane to vote, and many Members of the California, Oregon, Washington, and even some of the other western States who have interconnections they have to make north and south before they come east have to do that.

That is the only reason we ask about that. Maybe we could start a little earlier on Friday and still accommodate what needs to be done. But it is not self-indulgent, it is really a practical question of scheduling.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favor of House Resolution 429, as one might imagine.

As has been indicated, on Sunday August 28, 2005, the West Oahu Little League team from Ewa Beach, Hawaii won the Little League World Series in South Williamsport, Pennsylvania. They overcame a three-run deficit to win the world championship by defeating the Curacao team 7-6 in an extra-inning cliff-hanger.

It was one of the most exciting championship games in Little League history. And I thank many of the Members, Mr. Speaker, who commented upon it to me when I returned to the House. They enjoyed it as well.

The 2005 West Oahu Little League championship team consists of players Layson ``Kaeo'' Aliviado, Harrison Kam, Ty Tirpak, Zachary Ranit, Ethan Javier, Vonn Fa'eo, Quentin Guuevera, Sheyne Baniaga, Michael Memea, Zachary Rosete, Myron ``Kini'' Enos, Jr., Alaka'i Aglipay, and Manager Layton Aliviado, dugout coach Tyron Kitashima, and first base coach Clint Tirpak.

In their quest for the championship, the West Oahu Little League team demonstrated the highest level of achievement, commitment, self- discipline, and sportsmanship. Their achievement has generated enormous pride in their hometown of Ewa Beach, throughout the State of Hawaii, and across the Nation.

Aloha, and a well-earned congratulations to the world championships: the West Oahu Little League team.

And may I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by thanking the chairman and the good representative from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for their help in putting this resolution forward and for their support.

Madame Speaker, I rise today to support, S. 264, the Hawaii Water Resources Act of 2005. This legislation will authorize Federal funds for three urgently needed water projects in the State of Hawaii.

Madame Speaker, several years ago our State suffered through 5 years of drought conditions. Due to dangerous drops in our water levels, water usage was restricted to prevent saltwater from entering our pumps. Today, there is no drought and water conservation measures continue to be taught in schools and publicized. However, these three water development projects will make tremendous strides in ensuring a stable water supply for our growing island State and conserve the limited water supplies we do have. Because of the importance of these projects, I introduced the companion measure, H.R. 843, and wholeheartedly support this legislation.

H.R. 843/S. 264 would authorize three projects that would help the State of Hawaii implement long-term management plans for our most limited natural resource, fresh water. The Kalaeloa Desalination Project would be built on Oahu, home to 72 percent of the State's population. It is estimated that water use rates on this island will begin exceeding recharge rates in 2018. This problem is particularly evident on the western side of Oahu which has a secondary urban center, Kapolei, which has experienced a population explosion in recent years. Kapolei is a planned community whose population is expected to increase by 70 percent in the next 20 years. The Board of Water Supply for the City and County of Honolulu has successfully implemented conservation measures and special programs which have lowered water consumption. This project would help meet Kapolei's projected demand, conserve limited groundwater, avoid impacts to the environment from wells drilled in forested watersheds, increase system reliability and minimize saltwater intrusion when water levels drop in drought conditions--Oahu experienced a 5-year drought from 1998 to 2002. This facility would also be capable of future expansion, an important aspect for this heavily populated island.

The second project is located on the western side of the big island of Hawaii. This area sees very little rainfall and is very similar to the high arid regions of the mainland United States. The Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Project would utilize wetlands to naturally clean the effluent being discharged by the Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant. Once the effluent water quality is upgraded and the maximum amount of flow diverted for use onsite in the wetlands, a distribution system would then convey the recycled water to potential users. A conventional tertiary treatment system would be cost prohibitive for a facility of this size. Moreover, the discharge of treated water could lead to the degradation of coastal water quality in an area that is known for its beautiful beaches and is a popular tourist destination. This project is an ecologically friendly alternative that would also provide habitat for two endangered bird species which are currently nesting on land adjacent to the Keahole International Airport.

The third project that would be authorized is the Lahaina Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion Project located on the island of Maui. Over the last decade, Maui has worked to build a solid foundation for a water recycling program. Currently, it is able to use approximately 25 percent of the recycled water it produces, about 4 million gallons per day. The main impediment to using more recycled water is the lack of infrastructure to distribute the recycled water to the commercial enterprises that could use it. A key example of this problem is in West Maui where recycled water is used to irrigate the Kaanapali Golf Courses. The pipeline that leads to the golf courses also passes a number of other commercial enterprises that are interested in using recycled water but the infrastructure is not adequately developed to allow these properties to connect to the system. Authorizing this project for Federal assistance will allow for expansion at a much faster rate and result in a greater savings of potable water.

The State of Hawaii is addressing its problems of limited water and trying to implement solutions. The next time a drought comes, it may be too late to act. This bill will help us protect Hawaii's environment, meet our growing water needs, and maintain our quality of life. I urge my colleagues to support this vitally important measure.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support efforts to address the medical malpractice problem we have in this country today. There can be no doubt that doctors are paying excruciatingly high premiums and as a result, patients,and our medical system are suffering. However, I do not believe that H.R. 5 will do anything to solve this problem. As many of my colleagues have pointed out, this legislation will only lower expenses for the insurance industry and limit compensation for those victims who need it the most.

Later in this Congress, I will be introducing legislation to offer an alternative to the idea of caps on compensation. Instead of limiting victim awards, my proposal is to limit the involvement of the insurance industry in the medical malpractice system. Physicians will no longer have to worry about the cost of their medical malpractice insurance. The practice of defensive medicine and its toll on our medical system would be eliminated.

In addition, my proposal will ensure that the small number of doctors who are responsible for a large number of malpractice suits, will be critically examined. According to the National Practitioner Data Bank, 11% of physicians are responsible for half of all malpractice payments made between September 1, 1990 and December 31, 2003.

Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed S. 544, an important first step in addressing one of the root causes to the situation we face today. The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act will create a voluntary reporting system for errors and ``near misses.'' This information can then be analyzed so that better medical practices can be established.

Mr. Speaker, it is time to address the other root causes of rising medical malpractice premiums. Caps are an old and ineffective solution. My proposal will be a substantive and constructive reform for the entire system. I urge my colleagues to keep an open mind in trying to solve the medical malpractice problems we face today.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, because voting for the amendment means that you favor the indefinite presence of U.S. troops in Iraq. It is that simple.

The goals outlined in this amendment are so vague that they endorse the permanent U.S. occupation of Iraq, which is something the American people do not support. This amendment says that U.S. troops can only withdraw ``when it is clear that the United States national security and foreign policy goals relating to a free and stable Iraq have been achieved.''

What is ``security at risk?'' Endlessly sending U.S. troops out on patrols where they become a mobile shooting gallery for terrorists mocks the word ``security.''

Because the administration's goals for Iraq include creation of an idyllic Western style democracy that is stable, saying U.S. troops are stuck there until that happens is the same as saying U.S. troops will have to stay for 50 years or more.

Once the Iraqis have their constitution and an election, it will mean our troops have done everything that they can do and that it will be time to bring them home. U.S. troops cannot impose a democracy in Iraq. That is not their mission, it is not their job. Only the Iraqis can develop a democracy.

Finally, this amendment is pointless because it does not address the real questions facing the United States in Iraq. When can the United States begin to reduce the size of our forces in Iraq? We have already said we are leaving, so our departure is going to have to begin at some point.

We have 140,000 troops in Iraq today. Do we need to keep that many there until Iraq has been magically transformed into the peaceful, idyllic Western democracy that the authors of the resolution envision? I think not.

This amendment speaks of commitment to Iraq. I would humbly suggest that 1,768 dead U.S. troops, 12,700 wounded U.S. troops, and $250 billion represents plenty of commitment. How much more commitment is this war worth?

As our military leaders in Iraq and senior administration officials have said, the ultimate defeat of the insurgents in Iraq will not come about through U.S. military action.

Instead, the mission we have given those commanders is to train the Iraqis so they can assume the lead in the fight to defeat the insurgents.

Why bring out American troops? Because by keeping our troops in Iraq indefinitely, we're asking them to resolve political and social issues that need to be resolved by the Iraqis themselves. That's unfair to our troops, their families, and the country. It is also unfair to the Iraqi people who will never be able to assume control of their destiny while U.S. Armed Forces occupy Iraq.

If you are going to join me in voting against this resolution, I urge you to become a cosponsor of House Joint Resolution 55, which calls for bringing an end to U.S. military involvement in Iraq in a responsible manner.

H.J. Res. 55

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled,

Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw attention to the splendid contributions of Dr. Rex Monif, Director of the Winnebago Dental Clinic, and Karen Hicks, RDH, the Senior Dental Hygienist for the Clinic.

Through their efforts, they have been addressing in a meaningful way the dental health needs of the Winnebago tribe of Nebraska.

In March 2005 Dr. Monif and Ms. Hicks recruited 17 dental hygiene students from Iowa Western Community College, in affiliation with Creighton University, who volunteered as clinicians at the Winnebago Clinic.

The group conducted the first annual Children's Dental Sealant Project at the Winnebago Dental Clinic. As part of the project, they performed dental examinations, sealant placements, and fluoride treatments for students at the Winnebago Public School and St. Augustine School.

During the two-day project 320 children were examined and 1,300 sealants were placed. Most of the children also received a fluoride treatment. Parents were alerted to the need for further dental care for those students who were found to need follow-up dental care.

It is a pleasure to recognize Dr. Rex Monif, Ms. Karen Hicks, and the dedicated volunteers and professionals who have been and continue to devote their efforts to the improvement of dental health of the children of the Winnebago Reservation.

Will the gentleman yield on the question of the cost associated with the points you made?

The publication Inside Defense of July 6 reports, with regard to your estimations as to the cost, this was just prior to the advent of the meeting between the Iraqis and the Iranians. A group of advisors, I am now quoting from this July 6 article in Inside Defense. A group of advisors to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is preparing a report warning that the huge costs associated with prolonged bloody operations in Iraq and Afghanistan may become part of a U.S. adversary's strategy. U.S. led operations in these two countries, quote, have tapped out the ground services active and reserve components, unquote, stated June 29, briefing slides prepared for the working group of the Defense Science Board. The Defense Science Board, as my colleagues know, is the group designated to report to the Secretary of Defense on these issues. Quote, we therefore find ourselves without resources for any other campaign at this scale, a prospect not long lost on our adversaries, unquote.

The panel was part of the larger Defense Science Board which is doing a study for the Defense Department on transformation. Further quotation, the requirements U.S. forces face in the global war on terrorism to not only prevail in the traditional combat phase of the military operation and restore stability afterwards, but also to establishing a functioning free economy and robust democracy are significant and expensive. Quote, these new goals, that is to say, establishing the economy and the democracy, these new goals dwarf the complexity cost and scope of achieving victory on the battlefield, unquote.

Now, last summer the incremental additional estimated cost for stabilization and reconstruction in Iraq was estimated at $72 billion according to the Defense Science Board Panel. That was the previous estimation.

Now these costs are likely to be at least $500 billion and perhaps close to $1 trillion, unquote. Total military spending on operations in Afghanistan and Iraq from 2001 through this September 2005 is $252 billion according to Steve Kosiak with the Center For Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Spending on non military aid in these missions at the same time period is $27 billion in addition to the $252 billion.

The Congressional Budget Office in January estimated that between the fiscal year 2006 and 2015, the costs of supporting these operations could total $393 billion.

I never said, of course, that we are going to get any value received for this money. We are going to spend the money, but as the gentleman well knows and I think the record shows that what we are getting for the money is corruption, thievery, failure to significantly alter the infrastructure of Iraq in any significant way.

It does not surprise me in the least that there would be an accord or an attempt at an accord being undertaken between Iraq and Iran. After all, they live in the same neighborhood. We do not. What we are engaged in right now is another one of these false premises that somehow a military in an inherently insurgent situation is going to be able to provide political answers through military activity and subsequently having the military take on the task of helping to provide a civil infrastructure. It cannot be done. It will not be done.

The only victims of that will be the Guard and Reserve and active duty military forces of the United States so that the numbers of wounded, grievously wounded and dead will continue to rise.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield on that point, my intention is not to take up time

necessarily on Iraq Watch on the question of H.J. Res. 55, the joint resolution number 55, but that is the tangible substance of the commitment of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) and others at this point, including myself, to try to put legislation forward that will respond precisely to the commentary that the gentleman from Connecticut found in his West Hartford meeting.

The resolution asks the President to develop and implement a plan for the withdrawal of the United States Armed Forces from Iraq. It makes a reference, the short version of it, joint resolution 55, as Homeward Bound. The principal point here, rather than going over it point by point, the principal point in the context established tonight, and I am referring to one of two findings here, is that the United States has in place a timetable for training, equipping and employing Iraqi security forces to take over the counterinsurgency mission from coalition forces. That is a statement of fact.

Speaking as a member of the Committee on Armed Services, I can say to you in all candor and openness that we do have timetables. We do have timetables. We do have benchmarks. We do have indications and timelines for those indications of what constitutes success, what constitutes a capacity for the counterinsurgency mission to be taken from coalition forces by Iraqi forces of all kinds; from border police to interior ministry, to defense personnel police and armed forces.

In order to explicate that clearly to the American people, this House passed, in overwhelming numbers, an emergency supplemental appropriations for defense, the emergency supplemental appropriations act for defense on the global war on terror and tsunami relief. Public Law 109-13. In that, a joint explanatory statement accompanied the conference report, which required the Secretary of Defense to report not later than July 10.

As we speak, it is now approximately 8:45 p.m. on the East Coast on July 19, some 9 days past the deadline established by the Congress of the United States, passed by Democrats and Republicans in overwhelming numbers. Not with this Member's vote, to be sure. But nonetheless, my position as enunciated then in opposition to it, to the bill, because I felt we were not carrying forward on what we said we were doing, nonetheless the overwhelming majority gave the Secretary of Defense the opportunity to report to us no later than July 10 and every 90 days thereafter on measures for security, political, and economic progress in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I received a letter from the Secretary of Defense yesterday indicating they were working hard on this report. I have no doubt. But we are already 9 days late. We are already 9 days of more killings, more murders, more terrorism, more grievous wounding, more terrorism worldwide, and yet we do not have this report from the Secretary of Defense.

My plea is that other Members and the audience that may be listening to us tonight take a look at House Joint Resolution 55 that has been developed on a bipartisan basis with one of the leading advocates being the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) and other Members of the Republican Party and Democratic Party as well. This is not an ideological construct, this is not a resolution made to embarrass the President. On the contrary, House Joint Resolution 55 in some respects has been characterized by some as saying what are you doing helping President Bush? We should be in opposition to President Bush, but I feel the politics will take care of itself in time to come. There is no question about that. We can make that point later. This resolution is about backing up our troops now on the mission they have accomplished, and to get the political side, the economic side, the civilian side of this moving forward the way we say it should be.

So we set in this resolution the opportunity for the President to enunciate a plan commensurate with the time tables he has set for the establishment of a government in December, and to move forward with the troops that the Secretary of Defense himself has said are being trained so we can begin to withdraw, bring homeward bound our troops.

So when people inquire of you what is it Congress is doing, we can look at H.J. Res. 55. It is not perfect. It is a legislative project. The only perfect set of rules, the only perfect legislation was the Ten Commandments, and I understand Moses took 40 days to do them. And as he came down the mountain he said, Well, I got them down to 10. That is what the legislative process is. You talk things over.

So House Joint Resolution 55 is not a perfect vehicle, but it is a legislative vehicle to join with the President and make an offer to the President to join with us in the Congress in setting a timetable and plan for the withdrawal of these troops commensurate with the mission as enunciated by everyone.

Mr. Speaker, we do no service to the support of our troops by continuing to have them engage in military activity which undercuts that which they have accomplished to this point.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, July 12, 2005, I was unavoidably absent from the business of the House. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows on recorded votes:

Rollcall vote No. 365, ordering the previous question on H. Res. 351, ``no''; No. 366, passage of H. Res. 351, ``no''; No. 367, suspend the Rules and pass H. Res. 352, ``no''; No. 368, suspend the Rules and pass H. Res. 343, ``yes''; No. 369, passage of H.R. 739, ``no''; No. 370, passage of H.R. 740, ``no''; No. 371, passage of H.R. 741, ``no''; No. 372, passage of H.R. 742, ``no.''

Mr. Chairman----

Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Arc of Hilo and Lanakila for their hard work and dedication in improving the quality of life for people with developmental or other disabilities in Hawaii. I also want to pay tribute to the many achievements and contributions of Michael Gleason, the Arc of Hilo's executive director, and Marian Tsuji, President/CEO of Lanakila. The Arc of Hilo and Lanakila are a Javits-Wagner-O'Day Program (often referred to as JWOD), which provides job skills and training to those who are blind or who have other severe disabilities so they may earn good wages and benefits and gain a greater independence and the quality of life. Overall, the JWOD program empowers people with disabilities who traditionally face an unemployment rate of 70 percent and rely heavily on social support programs such as welfare and Supplemental Security Income (SSI).

The Arc of Hilo's mission is to improve the quality of life for people with developmental and other disabilities in Hawaii through educational, recreational, vocational, and skill training as well as employment and residential opportunities. Lanakila's mission is to offer programs and services for adults with cognitive, physical, social or age-related challenges that build and support higher levels of independence and an improved quality of life. By employing people who are blind or who have other severe disabilities, the Arc of Hilo and Lanakila are able to increase independence and self-esteem by helping these individuals enjoy full participation in their communities and market their JWOD skills to other public/private sector employers.

Demonstrating an excellent federal-private sector partnership, NISH, NIB, and local nonprofits such as the Arc of Hilo and Lanakila enhance the opportunities for economic and personal independence of people who are blind or who have other severe disabilities, primarily through creating, sustaining, and improving employment. Through the JWOD program, the Arc of Hilo provides employment opportunities and training for 60 people with visual and other severe disabilities enabling them to lead more productive and meaningful lives, support their families, and gain important work experience.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in recognizing the important contributions of the Arc of Hilo and Lanakila in the great aloha state of Hawaii. I commend all persons who are committed to and work towards enhancing employment opportunities for people with visual and other severe disabilities.

Mr. Chairman, I want to speak in favor of this.

I have spent 15 years here trying to develop alternative sources of energy so we are not victimized by oil. We have a safe extractive method here with natural gas. We have encouraged it. We want to get to alternative energies. This is one of the alternative energies, and it has a direct effect on the working people of this country.

I will tell my colleagues, I think this is a jobs issue. This is a blue collar issue. This is a family issue in terms of bringing down prices and getting a safe supply of fuel for this country. If we do not get into this kind of alternative, we are going to be struck forever in rhetoric and not being able to produce for our people, not just fuel but produce it in a way that is truly alternative and within the bounds of people's budgets.

That is why we need to support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleagues of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC) to recognize May as Asian Pacific American Heritage Month. As a member of the caucus' executive committee and the chairman of its Immigration Task Force, I want to honor the many achievements and contributions of the more than thirteen million Americans of Asian and Pacific Islander descent in our country.

Back in 1978, my friends and colleagues, Senator Daniel K. Inouye, former Senator Spark Matsunaga, former Representative Frank Horton and former Representative Norm Mineta helped establish the first 10 days of May as Asian Pacific American Heritage Week. Subsequent efforts were made to extend the week-long celebration to a month-long event. In the 102nd Congress, I was an original cosponsor of legislation signed into law that designated May of each year as Asian Pacific American Heritage Month.

I am blessed to serve the First Congressional District of Hawaii which is comprised primarily of Asian Pacific Americans (APA). It's an inspiring and empowering sight for other APAs from around the country to see. I know I say this every year, but I feel that it needs to be repeated. There is a special strength and resilience embodied in Hawaii's unique cultural mix: we have chosen to be defined by our diversity rather than divided by our differences. That resolve to work together with Aloha can serve as an example to the rest of the country.

While we can look at APA Heritage Month as a time to recognize and celebrate many individual accomplishments, we must also take action. My colleagues and I are committed to improving the lives of all APAs by working on issues of importance to our community, such as fighting to eliminate racial and ethnic health disparities, defending civil liberties, protecting Social Security, and ensuring educational opportunities for our children. These are the principles that reflect this year's theme, ``Liberty and Freedom for All.''

This year's theme represents the past and ongoing contributions of APAs, such as Congresswoman Patsy T. Mink who dedicated her life to economic and social justice, Congressman Robert Matsui, who's internment experience during World War II helped shape his belief that every American is entitled to basic civil rights despite their ethnicity, and Japanese American soldiers who fought during World War II, such as Senator Daniel K. Inouye.

Throughout our nation's history, APAs have made and continue to make major contributions in areas such as business, civil liberties, culture and arts, education, medicine, technology and politics. By the year 2050, there will be an estimated 33.4 million U.S. residents who will identify themselves as Asian alone, which will comprise 8 percent of the total population. This is a projected 213 percent increase of APAs between 2000 and 2050. These statistics reflect the growing significance of the APA community, its growing role in the development of public policy, and its cultural contributions that helps us to celebrate our diversities. I extend my heartfelt aloha to the APA community and look forward to celebrating APA Heritage Month.