Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. James Navin, MD, FCAP. Dr. Navin, a resident of Honolulu, has made many valuable contributions to the field of medicine not only in Hawaii, but throughout the United States.

Dr. Navin began his medical career with the United States Army and has also served in the United States Army Reserve as well as the Hawaii Army Reserve National Guard, serving both Tripler General Hospital and Fort DeRussey. Dr. Navin is a recipient of the Bronze Star, as well as the Army Commendation Medal.

He is the current president of the Hawaii Society of Pathologists, and a member of a variety of pathology related specialties, including the Hawaii Medical Association, the Honolulu County Medical Society, the College of American Pathologists and the American Society of Cytopathologists.

I came to know Dr. Navin as a passionate healthcare advocate in the 1990s. I worked closely with him and the national pathology organizations to increase the reimbursement for a common but vital medical test. With his commitment, tenacity, and capacity to bring people together we succeeded legislatively. More importantly, we ensured that life saving medical testing was conducted according to best practice.

An accomplished author, Dr. Navin has been published in over 30 medical publications, including the Hawaii Medical Journal. He has been recognized by the American Pathology Foundation as the American Pathologist of the Year, 2000, and has been recognized several times as one of the Best Doctors in Hawaii.

Dr. Navin will be stepping down as a member of the College of American Pathologists' Political Action Committee, but we are confident he will continue to be a strong voice for pathology. I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing this outstanding physician for his commitment to patient care.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of Filipino American Heritage Month. It is with great pleasure that I join Filipinos across the country in recognizing the history, culture, and accomplishments of Filipino Americans. Filipino American Heritage Month has been celebrated nationwide every October since 1988, and the Hawaii State Legislature, on April 15, 2008, was the first governing body to officially recognize the month.

There are nearly 4 million people of Filipino descent in the United States, and a sizeable

population of this group resides in my home State of Hawaii. Filipino Americans have been in the United States since the 18th century and have been in Hawaii since 1906, when the first Filipino migrant laborers came to Hawaii to work on the sugar and pineapple plantations. Those Filipinos, their descendants, and the recent immigrants to Hawaii and America have made an indelible impact on our culture, and we should be sure to take this month to recognize the contributions of Filipino Americans.

While Filipinos have made great contributions to America, it is important that we not overlook the needs of the community, including a fair and sensible immigration policy. I chair the Immigration Task Force of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, CAPAC, and I will continue to fight for the needs of families within the immigration debate.

One of the major issues for the Filipino Americans and other Asian Pacific American communities is family reunification: allowing relatives of legal permanent residents, other than spouses and minor children, to immigrate legally and join their families. It can take the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) as long as 23 years to even consider an application for a family member from the Philippines.

The extended family is a foundation in many of our cultures, and it provides real benefits to the greater society as well. Families often pool resources to educate children or purchase homes and establish roots in their communities. We often see extended family networks starting businesses, providing economic development and jobs. Congress must act to ensure that families who will contribute to American society are not punished by our immigration system.

The treatment of Filipinos who fought with the United States Armed Forces in World War II is also an issue of great concern for Filipino Americans and a dark spot in American History. The Philippines became a United States possession after Spain ceded it as part of the treaty ending the Spanish-American War in 1898. In 1934, Congress created a 10-year time frame for independence through the ``Philippine Independence Act.'' However, since the Philippines remained a colonial possession until 1946 the United States retained the right to call upon military forces organized by the Philippine government into the United States Armed Forces.

On July 26, 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued a military order that brought the Philippine Commonwealth Forces under the control of the United States Armed Forces during World War II. These men bravely fought with our own troops during the war, and many perished or suffered severe wounds from the battles in the western Pacific Theater. After the surrender of Japan, Congress required the Philippine Forces to continue service their service. Many helped occupy lands, many oversaw military operations, and many made the ultimate sacrifice to secure our victory in World War II. Yet, when wartime service ended formally in 1946 they did not receive the same benefits and the same treatment as other American soldiers.

Yet, for all their heroic and courageous actions, Congress passed the ``Recession Act'' in February 1946. This essentially denied Filipino veterans any of the benefits that their American comrades in arms received, including full access to veterans' health care; service- connected disability compensation, non-service connected disability compensation, dependent indemnity compensation, death pension, and full burial benefits. No other group of veterans has been systematically denied these benefits. While we are nearly out of time to right this wrong this Congress, I look forward to working with my colleagues in the 111th Congress on ensuring Filipino veterans the benefits they deserve.

Filipino Americans have enriched the fabric of America, and I am proud to celebrate Filipino American Heritage Month. I look forward to continuing to work with the Filipino American community to address the needs and concerns of Filipino Americans throughout the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H. Res. 1436, a resolution to congratulate the Waipio Little League Team from the State of Hawaii for winning the 2008 Little League World Series.

On August 24, 2008, the Waipio Little League baseball team won the Little League World Championship. Waipio defeated the Matamoros Little League team of Tamaulipas, Mexico, 12-3. This is the most runs scored by one team in a World Series title game since 1998. Waipio's victory by nine runs is also the largest winning margin by a US team over an international opponent in the title game,

To get to the Little League World Series, Wapio went undefeated through the season. They went 3-0 in pool play, defeating teams from Connecticut, Florida and South Dakota. On August 20, 2008, Waipio won the United States Semifinal by defeating Mill Creek Little League, from Mill Creek, Washington. Then on August 23, 2008, they won the United States Championship by defeating South Lake Charles Little League, of Lake Charles, Louisiana. During this game, the team was down 5-1, but persevered and came back in the sixth and final inning by scoring six runs, to win the game 7-5.

I would like to congratulate each member of the team and recognize their spirit and determination that got them so far: Iolana Akau, Jedd Andrade, Christian Donahue, Caleb

Duhay, Ulumano Farm, Kainoa Fong, Trevor Ling, Keelen Obedoza, Khade Paris, Tanner Tokunaga, Jordan Ulep, Pikai Winchester, Matthew Yap, Manager Timo Donahue, Coach Kiha Akau, and Coach Gregg Tsukawa.

Just as important, this resolution commends the team's families, coaches, and community for their support and dedication to enabling the success of the team on and off the field. Without this support, the team could not have traveled such a tremendously triumphant road.

I would like to thank Chairman Henry Waxman and Ranking Member Tom Davis for the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform's support in advancing this resolution. I would also like to thank Representative Mazie Hirono, Representative Eni Faleomavaega and Representative Madeleine Bordallo for their unflagging support and also that of Representative John Peterson, whose district hosts the Little League WorId Series.

I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the Waipio Little League Baseball team and their accomplishments and ask for your support of H. Res. 1436.

Madam Speaker, I regret that I was delayed in reaching the floor this morning and missed rollcall vote Nos. 645, 646 and 647. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on all three votes.

Madam Speaker, I rise to urge the immediate support for the expansion of the eligibility of benefits for Filipino vets.

On July 26, 1941, Franklin Roosevelt brought the Philippine Commonwealth Forces under the control of the United States during World War II. Yet when their service ended, they did not receive the same benefits or treatment as other American soldiers.

Congress passed the Rescission Act in 1946, against General MacArthur's open objections. This even includes such things as burial benefits. No other group of veterans has been systematically denied these benefits. There will be only 20,000 left by 2010.

There is some contention here that the Filipino veterans that fought with us as allies are not U.S. citizens. We are paying Sunni tribesmen who killed American soldiers bribe money today in Iraq, but the Filipino vets who saved American soldiers are left out of the benefits as allies of the United States.

This is shameful and needs to be stopped immediately. Bring those benefits to these Filipino vets, who are the allies and comrades in arms of United States soldiers.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank John Peterson as we move on this bill, whatever happens tonight. I notice there are some Members we have been working with.

This is kind of an emotional moment for me, I will tell you, because one of the great sorrows that I am going to have out of this is not so much that our bill didn't make it to the floor, but that John Peterson is leaving the Congress of the United States. Of course, he is doing it always for the right reasons, for somebody else, and, of course, we hope that your wife, John, is going to be well. I send her greetings and love and affection tonight, the love and affection we bear for you. You make the word ``honorable'' mean something very deep and real in this House.

I see Mr. Bishop and others. Mrs. Drake was here. There are so many names we were working with: Jim Costa and Dan Boren, Bill Foster, Timmy Walz, Tim Murphy. So many people. I am going to risk hurting people's feelings if I don't name everybody. But I have got to say Dan Burton or he will yell at me. So many folks. Jeff Miller, so many. Nick Lampson, he is down there tonight.

The reason I bring all those names up is that we are productive with H.R. 6709 I think because we got away from lobbyists coming in or corporations coming, advocacy groups, and we got away from the leadership clash, if you will, over who is going to get the House or who might not.

In all honesty, I want to move this bill tonight. I agree, by the way, with Don Young, I agree with what John just said, what Thelma said, all the folks over here on sharing the revenues. I think we didn't have enough information coming from the CBO on that. It looks now like we can put royalties in and it won't create a pay-as-you-go problem.

There are a lot of things that can be done, if we can move the bill along. That is what I am asking, just move this bill along. It is like Jim Costa said earlier, a work in progress. Come on, there are very few rookies here, very few rookies legislatively, even if you are just new in the body. We have got four or five different shots at this in order to perfect a bill.

I wouldn't vote for this bill if it came back now and this was conference bill. I wouldn't vote for it. But this gives us an opportunity to move this along. That is all I am looking for. And, believe me, the Republicans can claim they forced the Democrats to take it up and they made their point, and the Democrats will claim that they went for the bigger national interest and acted in a nonpartisan way.

Everybody can make their political claims. But let's keep this moving. We have been talking to Saxby Chambliss, come on, a lot of us served with him here in the House; and Lindsey Graham, he is our friend; Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu. I told Mary, left a message, said, look, don't say it's dead on arrival. We are for the revenue sharing. We can work this out.

The American people will blame all of us. The American people will not say the Democrats have showed up the Republicans, or the Republicans sure showed the Democrats. They are going to blame the Congress, because they want energy independence. We have to have it.

My plea to you is that we take this bill and move it along and get it into the Senate. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain in terms of energy independence, number one; and, number two, preventing the exporting of needed American dollars from investment in this country to import energy. That's the reason that we need to do this.

We have got to get away from, I see there is something from the National Wildlife Federation, comes in today, a lot of praise for the bill, but they don't like the oil shale provision, where it's an opt-in from the State, so they still

kill the whole bill, kill everything because there is something in it they don't like. We urge you to oppose it and the motion to recommit too. So we end up with nothing.

Other people, we have been using words like ``hoax,'' despite claims to the contrary, this is not a drilling bill. Believe me, when the Speaker came around on this, and it's one of the reasons I feel we should move forward with the bill, the Speaker doesn't want this bill, believe me. But she is not the leader of the California delegation, she is the Speaker of the House, and she feels that something has to move along, even if she doesn't approve of most of the provisions that are in here, if she had her own personal way. What I am asking is let's rise above the arguments. Let's rise above the clash with one another.

I don't say that for altruistic reasons, I say it for practical reasons, practical legislative reasons. We will not be forgiven by the people of this Nation if we are not able to move an energy bill to the Senate so we have a fighting chance to try and work the legislative process here. Let's not have the kids that come to visit us every day, the people who come to our office sincerely asking us for our help, look at us and say they couldn't do the job that they were sent here to do.

Why didn't we take H.R. 6709 from the beginning just for the reasons that John says and make this a bill that we all put together? We've denounced each other all day, not everybody, but the denunciations and the accusations were all taking place all day.

Where's John? No, no, I love you, John. The other John. But I don't see him over there.

Mr. Boehner, the minority leader, has been talking about the other bill, the total energy bill or whatever it is all straight through. Then we come to H.R. 6709. Now, it's easy for me. I gave my word. Everybody in here knows that I give you my word, I'm going to keep it. I gave my word on this bill to try and move it along, and so I will.

What bothers me is if the intention was to work H.R. 6709 all along, why didn't we do it? It would have been easy just to say okay, Madam Speaker, let's put this together and do it.

Now, as I say, I believe that honor puts me in the position of voting for the bill as we have it on the floor, not for the recommittal.

What I'm asking is, is if we meant this for real about trying to pass something in the national interest, then that's what we should do is pass the bill that we have.

Now if the recommittal comes up and it doesn't succeed, what I'm hoping is if the other bill passes--and I urge us to vote for that bill--that we then go to the Senate and say, look, we've got a considerable consensus here, not unanimous by any respects, but we have a considerable consensus on the drilling, on the revenue sharing, on all the items that we worked on, on a bipartisan basis.

So I think what we have to do here tonight, what I recommend to everybody on our side, is that we keep our word. We said that we were going to put this bill in good faith on the floor and move it along despite everybody saying that they had other contentions they would like to be in there, and that where H.R. 6709 is concerned on the recommittal is that it should have been offered from the beginning as a working document, but that the first part--okay. All right.

You're making my point for me. You're making my point for me. We reached out to everybody. John and I reached out, and not just John and I, the 49 or 50 people--I named some of them tonight--to everybody. And if you think you're going to score points by yelling at me here on the floor, I think you're making my case for me.

Madam Speaker, I regret that I was delayed in reaching the floor yesterday and missed rollcall vote No. 581. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1139) recognizing the 100th anniversary of the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and congratulating the men and women who provide exceptional service to our military and keep our Pacific Fleet ``fit to fight''.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the resolution under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today to recognize Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard on its 100th anniversary. On this important centennial, I would like to commemorate the men and women who have served and continue to serve in the shipyard. In their honor, we have introduced H. Res. 1139.

The Congress established the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard on May 13, 1908, and it has grown from a coaling and repair station to being known in Hawaiian as the ``No Ka Oi Shipyard''--``No Ka Oi'' meaning the best--and is a national treasure that is strategically important to our Nation and equally vital to Hawaii.

During World War II, shipyard workers earned the motto, ``We keep them fit to fight,'' by resurrecting the United States Pacific Fleet from the bottom of Pearl Harbor, helping to turn the tide of war at Midway, and maintaining the ships that would ultimately win victory at sea and sail triumphantly into Tokyo Bay.

Throughout the decades, the shipyard has demonstrated its diverse capabilities by supporting America's space exploration, Antarctic expeditions, and national missile defense. It continues to support the United States Pacific Fleet as the largest ship repair facility between the West Coast of the United States and the Far East, providing full- service maintenance for Pacific Fleet ships and submarines throughout the Asia Pacific theater.

The shipyard has become the largest single industrial employer in Hawaii and is the largest fully integrated military-civilian workforce involved in full service shipyard work in the United States. The shipyard has a direct annual economic impact of more than $600 million in Hawaii, and through its apprentice, engineer co-op, and other student hire programs, provides extraordinary training, employment, and career opportunities for residents.

Moreover, the shipyard has earned multiple national awards for its dedicated environmental stewardship and excellent safety programs, such as the prestigious Occupational Safety and Health Administration's Star Award in May of 2007.

I want to recognize the 100th anniversary of the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and congratulate the men and women who provide exceptional service to our military and indeed keep the Pacific Fleet ``fit to fight.''

Madam Speaker, I'm going to reserve the balance of my time at this point.

Madam Speaker, I want to compliment Mr. Wittman and I want to thank him. It is perhaps by coincidence, but a happy coincidence, that the gentleman, of course, is from Virginia. And with Virginia and Hawaii, we represent the east coast and the far west coast, I guess--really west--in Hawaii.

And I want to thank him as well for his excellent statement. Part of the reason being that he has outlined very, very well, I think, one of the most important issues that we face and one that does not always receive the kind of attention that I think it warrants, namely, our shipyards as a resource, and meeting the strategic interests of the United States.

Our shipyards, both public and private, are crucial, vital and necessary not only to the defense of the United States, but to seeing to it that, should

we be called upon to exert military activity anywhere in the world, the backbone, the foundation of any naval presence in any such contingency is dependent on the professionalism, dedication and perseverance of shipyards in this Nation.

He also mentioned, of course, the Virginia Class submarines, the nuclear submarines. And having observed the maintenance facilities in Hawaii at Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, I can assure you and Mr. Wittman that those Virginia Class submarines will be welcomed there, and that the repair and maintenance will be handled by people at the height of their professional capacity.

The military's counsel there, the Pearl Harbor supervisors--some of whom I believe are in the gallery today observing what we're carrying out today in terms of the resolution--understand that we're going through more than just simply a ritual undertaking. I think that perhaps sometimes these resolutions get put into that category in the sense that it appears sometimes that we're going through the motions. But I'm sure you know, Madam Speaker, that one of the advantages of ritual in our society and among our species is that ritual is the great conservator of value. It is a measurement of our sense of ourselves, where we've been, where we're going, and what we have as the basis for the future.

And so, yes, we're commemorating the 100th anniversary today of Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard, but in doing so, we remind ourselves of its historic legacy and we remind ourselves as well as to what the future may require of us here in the United States. The Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard stands ready to do its duty. Yes, Madam Speaker, I can tell you Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard will see that our naval forces are ``fit to fight.''

Madam Speaker, at this time, I have no further requests for time. I am prepared to close after my colleague has yielded back his time. And I will continue to reserve my time pending that happy occasion.

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

Madam Speaker, I regret that I was delayed in reaching the floor and missed rollcall vote No. 441. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6331, the ``Medicare Improvement for Patients and Providers Act of 2008.'' This bill makes some important changes in the Medicare program that help assure access for our seniors to quality medical care.

The bill defers the 10.6% cut in physician reimbursements mandated by the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) that would go into effect on July 1, 2008. Instead, the bill continues the present reimbursement rate for 18 months and then increases it by 1.1%.

The bill also provides important improvements for our senior citizens, increasing the allowable income and asset maximums for premium assistance. The co-payments for mental health services are reduced from 50% to 20%, the same as any other doctor visit.

The legislation addresses problems within Medicare to pay for these benefits, reforming the system that overpays to Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, private plans that operate within Medicare, which cost the government on average 12% more than traditional services. The bill will also require that any delinquent taxes owed by Medicare providers be deducted from their Medicare reimbursements.

In addition to improving Medicare services, the legislation also makes important changes to Medicaid, including a provision that is particularly vital for the people of Hawaii: Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payments.

Following an oversight in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, only Hawaii and Tennessee have not received DSH payments in Medicaid, which provide additional support to hospitals that treat large numbers of Medicaid and uninsured patients. This bill provides a temporary remedy, which will help keep these hospitals open.

I have been working with Senator Daniel Akaka, the Hawaii Delegation and my colleagues on the Committee on Energy and Commerce to ensure that Hawaii and Tennessee receive equal treatment in the matter of DSH payments from the Federal Government. H.R. 6631 extends DSH payments for Hawaii and Tennessee through December 31, 2009, and provides an additional $15 million for Hawaii. This extension authorizes the submission by the State of Hawaii of a State plan amendment covering a DSH payment methodology to hospitals which is consistent with the requirements of existing law. The purpose of providing a DSH allotment for Hawaii is to provide additional funding to the State of Hawaii to permit a greater contribution toward the uncompensated costs of hospitals that are providing indigent care. It is not meant to alter existing arrangements between the State of Hawaii and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) or to reduce in any way the level of Federal funding for Hawaii's QUEST program.

I will continue to work toward a permanent solution to the DSH matter, but until then, I urge my colleagues to support this measure. It is not an earmark, but merely provides Hawaii and Tennessee equity with everyone else.

Again I want to thank Chairman Rangel, Chairman Dingell, Chairman Pallone, and Chairman Stark on this important piece of legislation that protects our seniors and provides equity for the State of Hawaii. I urge my colleagues to pass this vital bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the nine drug courts in my State and around the country during National Drug Court Month. Over 2,100 drug courts in the United States provide an alternative to incarceration for non-violent, drug-addicted offenders by combining intense judicial supervision, comprehensive substance abuse and mental health treatment, random and frequent drug testing, incentives and sanctions, clinical case management and ancillary life skills services. The tireless efforts of the judges, prosecutors. defense attorneys, treatment providers, rehabilitation experts, child advocates, researchers, educators, law enforcement representatives, correctional representatives, pre-trial officers and probation officers that are involved in drug courts provide substance abusing offenders with the much-needed chance at long-term recovery and productive lifestyles.

I have seen firsthand the impact of the drug courts in my State, where drug court programs have enhanced public safety, saved taxpayer dollars and, most importantly, saved lives. Since opening their doors, Hawaii's drug courts have graduated over 840 adult clients, 180 family clients, and 81 juvenile clients statewide. During fiscal year 2006, the recidivism rate for adult graduates was a mere 8 percent. For juvenile clients the recidivism rate was 13 percent. Family drug court clients experienced no recidivism whatsoever in 2006.

As we face a growing population of drug-addicted offenders in the American justice system, we must expand our efforts to bring treatment to a larger number of those in need. According to a recent study by the Urban Research Institute's Justice Policy Center, approximately 1.5 million drug-involved offenders should be diverted to drug court, which would generate $46 billion in savings to American taxpayers. Armed with our existing research that drug courts work, reduce recidivism, and save lives and money, we must work on taking drug courts to scale.

If society is truly going to save the lives of the addicted, break the familial cycle of addiction for future generations, have a substantial impact on associated crime, child abuse and neglect, reduce poverty, alleviate the over-reliance on incarceration for the addicted, and reduce many of the public health consequences in the United States, drug courts must be taken to scale. There is no greater opportunity for systemic social change in the American justice system. There is no greater opportunity to heal families and communities.

Again, congratulations to the dedicated drug court professionals and graduates from Hawaii and around the country on a job well done.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time for those who oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to Mrs. Davis.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

Mr. Chairman, how much more time did Mr. Skelton have on his 2 minutes, please?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

How much time is remaining, Mr. Chairman?

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

I oppose this amendment because it cuts funding to our troops and their families. The defense bill's purpose is to ensure that troops and their families needs are put first as they struggle to fight two wars.

The needs of the Army are shortchanged in this amendment. The needs of the Army should be put first as the service carrying the heaviest burdens in the wars in progress. Readiness above all.

Putting troops first involves making choices. As President Eisenhower said about ``the clearly necessary.''

This amendment decreases pay benefits, health care for troops and their families, benefits that are clearly necessary by any measure, and puts hundreds of millions of dollars into corporate overhead.

Hear me. Understand. You vote for this amendment, you're voting to cut funds for the troops and their health care and their families' to put it in corporate overhead accounts, and you're going to be held to account for it come November, guaranteed.

The defense bill already provides $3.3 billion for this program. No more is needed for corporate overhead. The 5 percent reduction in the program that this amendment seeks to roll back has been reallocated. We reallocated funds for serious equipment shortfalls in the Army, National Guard, and Reserve. The equipment readiness needs of the Army, Guard, and Reserve take priority over corporate overhead any day. Understand, to pay for this amendment, you cut military pay, benefits, health care, and equipment for the National Guard and Reserve in multiple deployments.

The choice could not be more clear. You are going to take funding from the troops and their families and give it to defense contractors who have already received over $15 billion. Defense contractors are well paid for their services. They do not come and their profits don't come before military families.

I rise in support of the Spratt amendment. A reasoned and objective approach is needed for analyzing and assessing the serious issues surrounding the potential for nuclear weapons proliferation in Iran. The current bill language couples military readiness and contingency response planning with report elements that are inherently intelligence-related and dependent on the full spectrum of intelligence sources and methods.

The amendment appropriately shifts the burden of assessment regarding Iran's nuclear weapons capacity and/or intentions from the Secretary of Defense to the Director of National Intelligence. Why reinvent the wheel? Precedent and institutional knowledge specific to the issue already exist. The appropriate vehicle for perpetuating objective analysis of the situation is an updated NIE, with further updates regularly to follow, not an independent and parallel effort on the part of the DOD.

Renewing demand for products of the proven method of consolidating analysis through a centralized NIE process also discourages the temptation for some to ``forum shop,'' I assure you, among national security agencies for favorable or dissenting views, depending on the circumstance. We are all well aware of the Douglas Feith-led, Dick Cheney-originated cabal that was a major instigator of the war in Iraq.

A disassociated DOD effort would undermine a widely considered and properly vetted approach to nuclear proliferation and other high priority national security issues.

The amendment substantially reflects many of the points of inquiry from the report elements in the bill's existing language, but it centers the focus on an updated NIE analysis on the near and mid-term implications rather than on the speculative far-term projections, and does not rush to associate U.S. military response as a presupposition.

On that basis, Madam Chairman, I think this amendment deserves our favorable attention, and I thank you for the time allotted to me.

Mr. Chairman, I have the honor to serve as the chairman of the Air and Land Forces Subcommittee of our Armed Services Committee. I would like first to thank my own personal archbishop, Doug Roach, and all the acolytes on the Air and Land subcommittee, the subcommittee staff. They do a terrific job working with Ike Skelton's overall staff, led by Erin. I cannot tell you what a pleasure it is every day to be working with them in the manner in which they conduct themselves; professional, disciplined, focused, something I wish I could say about myself more often than I do.

Again, on the personal comment side, I want to thank my good friend, Duncan Hunter. Always, without fail, in all these years, attentive, polite, always welcoming commentary and seeking advice. We may say farewell to you, Duncan, but we will not be saying goodbye.

Finally, Mr. Jim Saxton, whom I don't see on the floor today. Jim Saxton may have his position taken, but no one is going to replace him in this Congress. He has been my friend. He has been my mentor. I have served as a ranking member on various committees, not just here, but on other committees, as well as having the opportunity to chair. I never considered myself a ranking member or a chairman where Jim Saxton was concerned. We were colleagues.

This bill is about balancing the capabilities and readiness of our current military forces with future required military capabilities. Our military personnel is at risk each and every day. The first priority is to make sure the men and women in uniform are properly supported by ensuring our military programs adequately support current military requirements.

We cannot short-change our personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan in their need for adequate equipment and the needs of our National Guard units here at home for what they may require to respond to potential national disasters. Promised future capabilities that have already been delayed because of overly optimistic and unmet schedules cannot subsume meeting today's demonstrated needs.

The Air and Land Forces Subcommittee's jurisdiction includes $90 billion in Army and Air Force programs. Our objective, Mr. Chairman, is clear, to ensure that our military personnel get the best available equipment as soon as it has been properly tested, equipment like armored vehicles, body armor, improvised explosive device jammers, unmanned aerial vehicles, small arms, and night vision devices.

We address key requirements: An increase in Army procurement and research of $557 million over the budget request, procurement and research where it's needed now, demonstrating the commitment of the Armed Services Committee to meeting these many needs. The Army in particular is carrying the heaviest burden of all the services in the war in which we are now engaged. This bill shifts funding to critical Army priorities now; $2.6 billion to fund sustainments costs for the tactical vehicle referred to as the MRAP, Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle, to better protect our personnel against mines and improvised explosive devices; $2.7 billion for counterimprovised explosive device programs, $949 million for Humvees, $783 million for body armor; $800 million for funding for much-needed National Guard and Reserve equipment.

Yes, we have reallocated funds in this budget where we have to meet the needs of the serving Army and Air Force today.

Fifteen C-17 strategic airlift aircraft added, at a cost of $3.9 billion dollars. It maintains the C-17 production line and sustains the strategic airlift fleet. Joint Strike Fighter competitive engine program has been funded for $526 million to provide necessary competition of two producers of engines for that program; $246 million added for systems to counter rocket and mortar attacks on our forces.

To fund these priorities, we had to make reallocation choices to fund the highest priorities. Some programs will have to make adjustments. No program is adversely compromised. On the contrary, increased accountability and increased oversight are the result.

In closing, I want to thank the distinguished chairman, all the ranking members of the full committee and the subcommittees, and may I say, Mr. Skelton, as I close, that it is a particular pleasure and an honor to serve with you. As I stand here today, I am thinking of Suzie Skelton. I know how proud she is of you.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Asian Pacific American--APA--Heritage Month. I am pleased to celebrate this important event.

May 2008 marks 30 years since President Jimmy Carter signed a joint Congressional resolution declaring the first 10 days of May as Asian Pacific American Heritage Week. In 1992, the commemoration was extended to the full month of May.

While it's an appropriate time to note the achievements of Asian Pacific Americans, APAs, we cannot overlook the needs of the community, including a fair and sensible immigration policy. I chair the Immigration Task Force of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus's, CAPAC, and I will continue to fight for the needs of family within the immigration debate.

The challenge has become much more difficult in the last year because the presidential primary campaigns have poisoned the discussion, focusing all their attention on undocumented immigrants from Mexico and calls for higher fences and tougher enforcement. Completely ignored is the fact that immigration issues facing Asian and Pacific Americans are far different. And those issues have been completely drowned out by the shrill demonization of illegal immigrants.

One of the major issues for the Asian Pacific American community is family reunification: allowing relatives of legal permanent residents, other than spouses and minor children, to immigrate legally and join their families. It can take the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) as long as 23 years to even consider an application for a family member from the Philippines.

The extended family is a foundation in many of our cultures, and it provides real benefits to the greater society as well. Families often pool resources to educate children or purchase homes and establish roots in their communities. We often see extended family networks starting businesses, providing economic development and jobs.

It is important that we move the debate on immigration past the bumper sticker solutions that have dominated the public dialog and work together to advocate for the needs of family. I believe we must find a just, practical and humane response to the 12 million undocumented immigrants living in the shadows of our society. But, we cannot forget that families that are separated tear at the very fabric of what America means. I urge my colleagues to learn more about this issue during APA Heritage Month and throughout the year, and work for comprehensive and human immigration reform for the APA community.