Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I missed rollcall vote nos. 720-726. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on all rollcall votes.

Madam Speaker, mahalo nui. Thank you very much.

I thank Representative Clay very much for his gracious introduction to this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I am filled with great emotion today. There are a lot of dates being celebrated. Representative Clay's birthday is today, and, of course, we want to wish him a very happy birthday.

I introduced this resolution on my birthday, June 26. It was about that time 50 years ago that I understood that I would be able to go to Hawaii. Just before that I had been informed that I had received a teaching assistantship at the University of Hawaii and that I would be soon on my way at the end of the summer to begin what became 50 years in Hawaii. So I have that same anniversary.

The statehood, of course, came August 21, and the first week in September, Neil Abercrombie arrived in Honolulu and knew almost immediately that I would never leave if given the opportunity to stay.

It is also going to be the birthday, of course, in a week or so, of President Obama, born in Kapiolani Hospital, just down the road from where I lived.

As I said, it is great emotion for me, a great time of nostalgia. I arrived in Hawaii at the same time as President Obama's father. We met those first days in our matriculation at the University of Hawaii. Of course, I could not possibly conceive at that time that the young man who was to be born out of the union of Ann Dunham and Barak, Sr., would become President of the United States. So there is a great confluence of history taking place over the next month or so with the entry of the 50th State, the last State of the Union.

As Mr. Clay indicated, there are also some very, very interesting firsts, if you will. We were maybe the last State to come into the Union, but we had some very, very interesting firsts, and I want to congratulate Representative Bachmann on her superb pronunciation of Prince Kuhio's last name, Kalanianaole. You said it perfectly. Thank you very much indeed.

I know you must have struggled with that, because I remember my first day in the classroom, the first Saturday, 8 o'clock in the morning, teaching the lab course in sociology, determined to say the Hawaiian names right, and I remember the first one was Samson Poomahealani, a center on the football team. He became my good friend, and we celebrated the 50th anniversary of our friendship just the past month when we got together. Samson went on to do great things with the labor movement in this country.

It is that kind of occasion. You can see it on my face, you can hear it in my voice. This is a time of great joy for us.

Yes, the first Asian American Senator, Republican Senator Hiram Fong, lived almost a century. He was the first Asian American, Chinese American, Senator. And, of course, Patsy Mink, our beloved Patsy Mink, whom we miss every day. And Danny Akaka, perhaps the best-loved person in the Congress, of whom never a bad word has been said. Don't we all wish the same could be said of us? And, of course, the Congressional Medal of Honor winner, the third longest-serving Senator in the United States, Daniel K. Inouye, serves now as the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the first Japanese American to serve in the Senate.

There are some other dates I think of interest to all of us; 1778, James Cook comes to Waimea Bay near Kauai. Then in 1795, Kamehameha I, whose statue is very prominent in the Visitors Center right now, establishing the Hawaiian monarchy.

On February 24, 1954, Mr. Speaker, a 250-pound petition containing 120,000 signatures in favor of statehood was delivered to the Congress, and then in March of 1959, this House of Representatives passed the Hawaii statehood bill, 323-89. I am sure the 89 all had a chance to visit and regretted their votes against it. Of course, then President Eisenhower signed the proclamation, making us the 50th State on August 24.

So, Mr. Speaker, I can say from the bottom of my heart that Hawaii has given everything to me. I never conceived, as I indicated earlier, that I would ever have a chance to represent Hawaii in Congress. It is more than an honor and a privilege to do so.

So I now ask all then to join with us in this joyous occasion where we have the opportunity to celebrate friendships and relationships of decades' standing to celebrate the transition of Hawaii from the time of a pre-feudal kingdom, a kingdom, a shotgun republic, a territory, and now a State of the Union, the last State of the Union to this time.

We are filled with a great sense of gratitude for that which has been given to us over these past 50 years, and, of course, pledge at this time that even though we were last to join the Union, we are first among those who appreciate, understand and take great pride in being a State of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to oppose an amendment offered by Representative Flake to H.R. 3183, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2010. This amendment would strike $3 million in funding from the Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research located in Georgia.

I support this funding because of the amazing progress CPBR funded projects have been able to make. CPBR receives a small amount of funding annually and in turn has a competitive selection process to fund projects that further plant biotechnology that impacts the seed, agrochemical, forestry, food, energy, electric power, and other nonfood agriculture-based industries.

On average, federal funds to CPBR are matched 130 percent with non- federal funds. Industry must provide at least 50 percent cash matching, this requirement is not required by federal grants and goes to prove the worthiness of these CPBR projects and expedites their path to the marketplace. It is noteworthy that 372 CPBR-funded research projects have resulted in 129 patents, 67 patent applications pending, 274 licenses, and 5 start-up companies. In fact, CPBR-funded projects average 2.5 patents/$1 million of federal funding. This is significantly higher than the university rate of 0.13 patents/one million federal dollars, that's 1900 percent higher.

In Hawaii, CPBR funded a professor at the University of Hawaii who developed a process called ``flash carbonization'' which is now patented and has been licensed to several companies including Kingsford. This process uses a large cylindrical reactor to pressurize and heat tires, green waste and municipal solid waste to make a ``biochar'' or charcoal that can be used to enhance soil or burn as a fuel. This technology has spawned two energy companies that are building new environmentally friendly industries and creating high paying jobs in Hawaii. This progress started with a small research grant from CPBR.

CPBR supports higher-risk, longer-term environmental research that is essential to innovation, research that companies cannot afford to do on their own. With these federal funds, innovative advancements in environmental and energy research are hastened to the marketplace where they can be implemented. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment offered by Representative Flake and vote against its passage.

Madam Speaker, I regret that I missed rollcall vote No. 297, 389, 392, 394 and 405. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on all rollcall votes No. 297, 392, and 394. I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall votes No. 389 and 405.

Mr. Speaker and Members, I'm the chairman of the Air and Land Subcommittee. And I really feel very, very deeply that this recommit motion made right now really is not in order in the way we work. The phrase was used ``on the other side of the aisle.'' There are no ``sides of the aisle'' in the Air and Land Subcommittee. Every single member of that committee is recognized by this chairman as not only equal in terms of their input, but equal in terms of their commitment to the defense of this country.

You folks know me here. This kind of thing does not take place in our subcommittee. There is no ``side of the aisle'' when it comes to the defense of this Nation.

Let me just give a couple of quick examples. On the Stryker vehicle, we have $338 million in there on top of the $200 million plus that we put in the supplemental. We were never given any other number despite any opportunity anybody could have had to bring that number forward.

On the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected all-terrain vehicles, $5.45 billion for 1,000 vehicles, upgrades, retrofits and operation and maintenance. If there is one thing that this chairman, Ike Skelton, has done in the committee, for both Republicans and Democrats who have the responsibility and obligation as members of the Armed Services Committee, is to see to it that readiness is first, foremost and fundamental in our deliberations.

I ask you, I ask you as a fellow member of the Armed Services Committee, not as a Democrat or as a Republican, to reject this on the basis that our committee did its work the way it should do its work. We set a standard for bipartisanship, in fact nonpartisanship, when it comes to determining what is the interests of the fighting men and women of the United States of America.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2990, the Disabled Military Retiree Relief Act of 2009. This important legislation will finally address the issue of concurrent receipt, as well as other significant issues that plague public employees. One key issue affecting federal employees in Hawaii is the long-awaited transition from a Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) to locality pay, as is currently used on the mainland United States.

Equitable retirement pay for federal employees outside the contiguous 48 states is a concern shared by the approximately 50,000 civil servants living in Alaska, Hawaii and the U.S. territories. The current cost of living adjustment (COLA) provided to federal employees outside the continental United States has created a retirement inequity between them and their mainland counterparts. If federal service in non- contiguous areas is seen as a detriment to future financial security, our government will have an increasingly difficult time attracting and retaining the very best personnel. Further, federal workers should not have to resort to completing their final years of service on the mainland just to earn adequate retirement pay.

I think this bill is an important step in addressing the inequality between those serving in the continental United States and those in more remote locations, such as Alaska, Hawaii and the territories. Federal employees throughout the nation are making an equal contribution to the health, well-being and security of our nation. Regardless of where they live, they deserve equal treatment and should not be penalized in their retirement for choosing to contribute to the local communities outside the 48 contiguous states.

I believe that all federal employees will be better off under this bill than under the COLA system because their entire pay will now be counted toward their retirement benefits. Moreover, with COLA rates scheduled to decrease for many locations this year, and territories such as American Samoa receiving none, now is the time to act.

Please join me in supporting H.R. 2990 and ensuring retirement equity for all federal employees regardless of their location.

Mr. Chair, I have the honor of serving as the Chairman of the Air and Land Forces Subcommittee of our Armed Services Committee. I would like to thank our Chairman, Ike Skelton, for his great leadership in bringing this outstanding bill to this point. I also welcome the new Ranking Member, Buck McKeon, and am confident that he and Chairman Skelton will make a great team.

I would also like to thank Roscoe Bartlett, our subcommittee's ranking member, for all his support and advice in putting our bill together.

This bill is about balancing the capabilities and readiness of our current military forces with desired future required military capabilities.

Our military personnel are at risk each and every day. Our first priority is to make sure those men and women are properly supported by ensuring our military programs adequately support current military requirements.

We are doing everything possible to provide our personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan the equipment they need as well as provide for the equipment needs of our National Guard units here at home, to meet crisis response and potential natural disaster requirements. The subcommittee's jurisdiction includes $82 billion in Department of Defense procurement and research and development in Titles I and II and another $20 billion in Title XV, for overseas contingency operations.

We have made nearly $3 billion in reallocations within the Subcommittee, funding higher priority current requirements, using funds from programs with excessive unexpended balances, delayed execution, and excessive cost growth.

Our Subcommittee increased the unfunded requirements of the Army and Air Force by over $1 billion by reallocating funding from these lower priority projects. The mark also provides an additional $603 million for procurement and research and development of the F136 competitive engine for the F-35 aircraft program. This is largely offset by rebalancing within the F-35 program, by reducing procurement from 32 to 30 aircraft.

Nearly $2.7 billion is authorized for 176 Apache, Kiowa, Black Hawk, and Chinook helicopters and an additional $1.2 billion is provided for helicopter modifications. Our bill:

Fully funds elements of the Future Combat Systems program that will continue in some form, at $2.55 billion;

Provides $2.5 billion for new and upgraded Army ground combat vehicles;

Provides $263 million for research and development of future Army ground combat vehicle upgrades and improvements; and

Provides $600 million for National Guard and Reserve Equipment, above and beyond what is in the budget request.

The change by the National Guard to an operational reserve status, coincident with a reorganization of the Army, has greatly increased the amount of equipment Guard and Reserve units are required to have. While the Department is making improvements and progress in providing improved funding to equip the National Guard and Reserve to enhance its role as an operational reserve, there are a significant number of units that do not have their required equipment.

Given the operational reserve equipage model, a large percentage of nondeployed Army National Guard units are far below Army standards for equipment on hand. Without the right type and amounts of equipment, even the most dedicated and experienced soldier or airman cannot train for combat, or provide adequate assistance when there is a domestic emergency.

The committee continues to work on improving intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, known as ISR capabilities, as well as improving counter improvised explosive device technology, vehicle armor, body armor, and helmet protection. Like many other mission areas in the Department of Defense, there is no apparent nexus for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance joint strategy, requirements coordination, acquisition or deployment focus, where a single lead organization is responsible.

An example that can be cited is the unplanned and expensive proliferation of dissimilar ISR platforms all seeking to provide the same capability.

Coalition forces control the skies in both theaters and has the world's best ISR technology, but does not use this advantage to full advantage.

The Department still fails to provide joint ISR employment plans for both Iraq and Afghanistan. This bill directs the Department to assess the current use of ISR systems in Iraq and Afghanistan and make recommendations on how to more effectively coordinate and use all the systems we have deployed and plan to deploy.

The committee has in the past directed the Department to define joint ISR requirements and develop a long-term strategic plan to make informed acquisition decisions to meet ISR goals. That continues to be a work in progress.

body armor

It is widely reported that our soldiers in Afghanistan routinely carry loads of 130 to 150 lbs for a 3-day mission. Personnel can only wear so much armor, beyond which their operational effectiveness is inhibited, which in turn increases their risk of being injured. Two provisions in our bill require the Secretary of Defense, beginning with the fiscal year 2011 budget request, to establish research and development program elements and procurement budget line items for the development and acquisition of body armor and personnel protection enhancements.

The language also strongly encourages the Secretary of Defense to consider establishing a DOD-wide Task Force on par with the MRAP Vehicle Task Force to promote weight reduction initiatives for body armor.

The bill fully funds the President's request of approximately $700 million for body armor.

mine Resistant ambush protected (MRAP) vehicles

With regard to the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle program, over 16,000 vehicles have been produced in just over two years. Approximately 15,000 vehicles have been fielded and these vehicles continue to save lives daily. Almost $26.0 billion has been provided by Congress for this program.

This bill fully funds the President's request of $5.45 billion for MRAP category vehicles. The request procures approximately 1,000 MRAP All-Terrain Vehicles, a lighter weight version of the current MRAP Vehicle, to be used in Afghanistan. The request also provides operation, maintenance, and sustainment funding as well as necessary funds to address home-station training requirements.

tactical wheeled vehicles

The bill provides $5.25 billion for light, medium, and heavy tactical wheeled vehicles or ``Humvees'' and ``trucks.'' This funding keeps the industrial base operating at high levels of production and will help address shortfalls in the Guard and Reserve components. In closing, I again want to thank my distinguished chairman and ranking member of the full committee and our subcommittee.

H.R. 2647 is deserving of a ``yes'' vote from every Member of this body.

Mr. Brady, thank you for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, Representative Hirono has given an excellent history of Kamehameha and the reasoning behind the

celebration of his birthday as a State holiday in Hawaii. For the benefit of the Members and those who may not be familiar with the question of the statue itself and what it represents in the broader context, for those who may not be familiar with it, I would like to perhaps give a little bit of perspective, a little history on it.

When people come from all over the world, not just the country itself, the Nation itself, to the Capitol, when they tour the Capitol, the most open capitol of any in the world, perhaps in the history of the world, we take pride, do we not, in the fact that this Capitol is open and available and accessible to all people, and we take some degree of pride, and rightfully so, that we are able to exhibit some of the history of this Nation for all to see and that each State has the opportunity to present for consideration of all of us two statues.

One, of course, for us is Father Damien, who has just been named as a saint in the Roman Catholic Church. He came from Belgium to the United States to then, of course, the territory of Hawaii and ministered to those who had Hansen's disease, leprosy, on the Island of Molokai on the peninsula of Kalaupapa. His ministrations to those who had been abandoned, those who literally had been exiled to Kalaupapa resulted in the consideration by the Roman Catholic Church of miracles having been taken place in his name as a result of his dedication.

The other statue representative of what we feel Hawaii is all about, of course, is Kamehameha. He's a legendary figure. The things that Representative Hirono cited, of course, are part of history. But when we use the word ``legendary'' to describe someone, it genuinely fits Kamehameha the Great.

In his youth as part of this legendary history, he was known as a courageous warrior. He was said to have overturned the Naha Stone in Hilo, Hawaii, which indicated his almost superhuman strength and foreshadowed his inevitable conquest of all of Hawaii. I suppose it is the equivalent or a parallel could be drawn to the seizure of the Excalibur sword from the ground by the legendary King Arthur. This is the stature of Kamehameha. He did, in fact, unify the islands. And when he passed away in 1819, the phrase that was used with his passing is that ``only the stars know his final resting place.'' So the legend became even more of a tale to be told not only throughout the islands but throughout the world.

So when people see that statue, when they observe that statue, they're somewhat shocked. It's monumental. I recall very, very clearly that in the rather obscure corner in Statuary Hall where Kamehameha originally resided here in the Capitol, it was somewhat difficult to find. People were not quite sure why it was there. It was said that because of the great weight of the statue itself it had to go there in order to be supported by the flooring of the Capitol. So in that position, Mr. Speaker, the really triumphant power and grace of the statue was not necessarily fully available to those who came to Statuary Hall. As a result, the Architect of the Capitol said to me, when we were first discussing the question of the visitor center and what is now Emancipation Hall, that he wanted very much to have the statue of Kamehameha in a very prominent position when the new visitor center was opened. He was certain that it would occupy an enormous presence there. It does that today. And we are very, very grateful for the opportunity for all to come and to view it.

Madam Speaker, I regret that I missed rollcall vote No. 107 through 115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 107 and 109 through 115. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote 108.

Madam Speaker, I regret that I missed rollcall vote no. 128, 129 and 130. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on all three votes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support legislation that has been introduced by my colleague, Congresswoman Bordallo. H.R. 44, the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act, would honor the residents of Guam for their loyalty and compensate them for the atrocities they suffered during the long and violent Japanese occupation of Guam.

During World War II, Guam was invaded, seized and occupied by Imperial Japanese forces for nearly three years. The war destroyed much of Guam, including housing, public buildings, utilities and infrastructure. In addition, the people of Guam suffered many deaths and an untold number of acts of brutality. This ruthless brutality has left a lasting impact on the survivors of the war and the descendants of victims. These sufferers wanted nothing more than survival and liberation under the U.S. flag.

In 1947, the Secretary of the Navy commissioned a civilian committee on the Naval Administration of Guam and American Samoa to prepare a report with specific recommendations. The report became known as the Hopkins Report and was submitted to the Secretary of the Navy in 1947. Among other things, the report addressed deficiencies in the war claims process for Guam immediately after the war ended. In the cover letter submitted with the report, the committee stated, ``Only so can justice be done to a valiant group of Americans who at great cost to themselves remained steadfastly loyal during the war . . . in so special a case this government could well be very generous in method of distributing its relief as well as generous in amount awarded. It has been neither.''

Many decades later, the 107th Congress authorized the Guam War Claims Review Commission to determine if the people of Guam received parity in claims as compared to other Americans who experienced losses and damages during the war. In 2004, the Commission submitted their final report to Congress and found that Guam's residents were inequitably treated.

There has been legislation to address this inequitable treatment in every Congress since 1985. Two hearings have been held, one in the 108th Congress and one on in the 109th Congress. In the 110th Congress, the House passed H.R. 1595 under a suspension of the rules but the Senate was not able to act on the measure before final adjournment. It is time to follow the recommendations made by both the Hopkins report and the Guam War Claims Review Commission by providing adequate reparations for the people of Guam. It is time to honor them for their sacrifices.

Congresswoman Bordallo continues to call for a resolution to this open wound and has done a fantastic job over the years to create the most fair and equitable legislation that Congress can pass. I hope the people of Guam know that this issue is being addressed and the people have not been forgotten.

I urge my colleagues to support the people of Guam and vote for final passage.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2009, a bill to affirm and formalize the long political relationship between Native Hawaiians and the United States. This measure clarifies that political bond and provides a process for Native Hawaiians to form their own governing body and participate in a government-to-government relationship with the United States. This is a companion measure to legislation being introduced by Senator Daniel Akaka in the Senate this evening.

The United States recognized the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Hawaii more than 175 years ago, accorded the Kingdom full diplomatic recognition and entered into treaties and conventions in 1826, 1842, 1849, 1875 and 1887, all ratified by Congress. The United States has declared in law a special responsibility for the welfare of the Native peoples of the United States, including Native Hawaiians.

P.L. 103-150, the Apology Resolution, extended an apology to the Native people of Hawaii on behalf of the United States for our country's role in the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1893. The Apology Resolution also expressed the commitment of Congress and the President to acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow, and to support reconciliation efforts between the United States and Native Hawaiians.

This relationship was explicitly affirmed in the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920, which set aside 200,000 acres of land for homesteading by Native Hawaiians. Legislative history clearly shows that Congress based this action and subsequent legislation on the constitutional precedent in programs enacted to benefit Native Americans. In fact, since Hawaii's admission into the Union fifty years ago, Congress has legislated on behalf of Native Hawaiians, including them as Native Americans in numerous statutes.

The legislation I am introducing today is important not only to Native Hawaiians, but to everyone in Hawaii. It provides a process to address many longstanding issues facing Hawaii's indigenous peoples and the State of Hawaii. In addressing these matters, we have begun a process of healing, a process of reconciliation not only between the United States and the Native people of Hawaii, but within the State of Hawaii.

The essence of Hawaii lies not in the allure of its islands, but in the beauty of its people. The State of Hawaii has recognized the need to preserve the culture, tradition, language and heritage of its indigenous peoples. This measure gives form to the U.S. government's responsibilities in that same effort.

Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that Section 214 of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009, H.R. 2, would apply to the citizens of the Republic of Palau, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia.

According to the Compact of Free Association negotiated and agreed to by the United States, the citizens of these countries are here legally. However, the federal government currently does not provide any financial assistance to states to pay for the care of these individuals through such programs as Medicaid or SCHIP. Since Section 214 of this bill applies to those legally residing in the United States, I believe this clearly includes the citizens of the Republic of Palau, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia. Therefore, Madam Speaker, as this bill moves forward, it is my hope that compact migrants will be treated fairly under this new law.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to address an issue raised by my colleagues regarding Hawaii's Keiki Care program as a reason not to expand SCHIP. It was suggested earlier today that the Keiki (meaning ``child'') Care program was cancelled due to perceived crowd-out, a situation where parents drop their children's private insurance in order to enroll into a free government program.

I have supported the State Legislature's efforts to expand health care coverage for children and followed the implementation of Keiki Care closely. The statements made about a crowd-out problem leading to the program's demise were baseless. The Keiki Care program had no problems with crowd-out. First of all, it was intentionally designed to prevent such behavior in requiring that children who wish to enroll must be uninsured continuously for 6 months. Secondly, if parents were indeed hoping to drop their insurance and wait 6 months to enroll, then Keiki Care would have seen a spike in enrollment. Blue Cross Blue Shield Hawaii, the health insurance provider for Keiki Care, did not see any spikes in enrollment and have no evidence to believe crowd-out occurred.

Furthermore, there was little incentive for parents to switch to the Keiki Care program from any private health plan. The health insurance plan offered under Keiki Care was basic preventative care. This means that parents would have had to pay for expanded care costs out of pocket. In looking closer at the Keiki Care program, it is evident that a parent with a full coverage plan for their child would have no incentive to drop a private insurance for this basic, prevention- centered plan.

The State Administration has given various explanations regarding the decision to end Keiki Care, including a growing budget deficit. However, the facts about the program are clear. There was never a problem regarding crowd-out and if continued, the program would have helped to cover more of Hawaii's uninsured children. Therefore, Madam Speaker, it is my hope that by clarifying the details regarding Keiki Care, it will no longer be used as a rationale that has no basis in fact against SCHIP or other efforts to expand health insurance to children and the uninsured.