Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, apparently we are going to have to come to the floor over and over on this. I would appreciate it if the gentleman from the Eighth District of Georgia representing the people in Grantville, who I presume have more courtesy than the gentleman from that district has, could let us know besides the smirk on his face when he intends to come and attack someone else in another district. I don't know how you were raised; I know how I was raised.

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

I am confining my remarks to the Chair, because if I was saying it directly to the gentleman, he would know it a lot more physically.

Now, the way I was raised, when you have something to say to somebody, you come and say it to their face. Now, if the gentleman would like to accompany me sometime out to Hawaii, I will introduce him to some of these folks that he is attacking today.

This act was established by the Congress, and every single dollar and every single item associated with that has been set forth by the Congress over time. The President of the United States, Republican or Democrat, including this President, has put these funds in the budget in order to meet the obligations of the contract.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I am not familiar with how the gentleman from the Eighth District of Georgia handles contracts, but we honor them where I come from.

There is 200,000 acres set aside, and the original legislation states as follows, section 1065-569, I commend to the gentleman's attention: ``Congress does not extend services to Native Hawaiians because of their race, but because of their unique status as the indigenous people of a once sovereign nation as to whom the United States has established a trust relationship.''

The Admissions Act that brought us into the Union as the 50th State says specifically that, with regard to these lands, the Hawaiian Homes Lands, that they are to be administered by the State of Hawaii and the United States ``for the betterment of the conditions of Native Hawaiians as defined under the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920.'' And it goes on from there to cite what is involved.

Now, the block grant program provides funds for infrastructure to help Native Hawaiians obtain mortgages on lands set aside for them from Congress. Because of the conditions set out by the Congress, ordinary financing is not available to them. This is why we have to do it. If the gentleman had had the courtesy to sit down for 2 minutes with us, we could have explained what this was about.

A decision has to be made here. Of course we have to come and defend our programs. Everybody does. I am quite content to do that.

But this is the first time ever in my experience, my legislative experience of more than 33 years, that this kind of thing has taken place.

Now, I know you folks over there. I'm looking at friends of mine right here. You would never have, me or Ms. Hirono would never do this kind of thing to you. If you have a disagreement about it, come and see us. Let's sit down and talk about it. And if you still disagree with what we're doing and why we're doing it, by all means bring it to our attention on the floor. But these kinds of attacks are unworthy of this House. It's unworthy of us to have relationships with one another like this. I don't understand it. I've never experienced it before.

Now, we can do this in 5-minute segments if we want to, but that's not the way to handle this. I appeal to you, if this is going to be a continuing onslaught, let's sit down and talk it over.

This legislation, the Department of Hawaiian Homelands is one of the most effective housing efforts that we have in order to try and meet the conditions that were set forth by the Congress and administered faithfully by the State of Hawaii since our entrance to the Union in 1959.

The House supported reauthorization of this program; 272 Members, including 45 Republicans, voted for it. It is not a partisan issue.

And I'll finish with this, Mr. Chairman. The Republican Governor and the Republican Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate in Hawaii, as well as the Democrats, support this program. It is not a partisan issue.

And so I ask, out of courtesy for Members, that if we're going to have a discussion about this, at least let's have it on the merits of what the issue is before us. And if we're going to do this kind of thing, at least have the courtesy, the common courtesy that should be extended to any Member of House, to let us know that it's happening so perhaps, Mr. Chairman, we could resolve the issue beforehand.

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, I am standing here today speaking for young people in Alaska. I am sure that when Mr. Young gets the opportunity, he will be down here to speak for them, too.

I wasn't aware of the fact that the young children in Alaska needed the tender mercies of the gentleman from New Jersey to speak for them. I would think that the children in New Jersey have all they can do, considering the level of the rhetoric I have heard for the last few minutes, to get the best education possible there. The Congress is certainly not being well informed about it today.

I most certainly agree with the other gentleman who said that education is best left to the local level. How about letting the gentleman from Alaska, or any other place where they understand what the educational needs of their children are, handle it at their level? That would be the way to take care of it.

No, I will not yield. You had more than enough time to make your case.

Madam Chairman, I am going to make a case for those children and the children in Hawaii and the children in every other State and area in this country who deserve the support of this Congress. I have heard talk already down here today about taxes being paid. You don't think taxes are being paid in Alaska or in Hawaii or elsewhere?

When you talk about local programs, I have the local programs that we have in Hawaii. I am sure Mr. Young has the local programs that we have in Alaska. I haven't examined them in New Jersey, but, as I say, I have heard the rhetoric for the last few minutes. Maybe I had better go up there and give them a hand.

Now, I respect every Member of this floor, and I expect to receive the same in return. When the State of Hawaii came into the Union, one of the protocols of the Admissions Act is the requirement that we recognize and take care of our Hawaiian children. We have programs that are geared towards that. We have Historically Black Colleges in this country. We have established over the past few decades studies in various backgrounds, ethnically, culturally, racially. We have caucuses in this Congress that recognize the various backgrounds from which our people come.

Hawaii, I can tell you, just as Alaska is, because I have visited Alaska and have had an opportunity to speak with the teachers and schoolchildren in Alaska, we are a multi-cultural, multi-racial, multi- ethnic country. We are a multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-background, rainbow state in Hawaii, and we recognize those backgrounds and we try to take care of it in our educational processes.

All we are asking for is the opportunity here to help fund local programs that have local assistance as well. That is done in program after program after program.

Now, if the gentleman does not care to have the Federal Government fund anything for education in the United States, that is his prerogative. I recognize that and respect that. I don't approve of it, and I hope the Congress won't approve of it. But to have any Member come into another State without any notice to anybody that they are going to do it, by the way, a courtesy that I would extend to anybody in here, I have to find out about it by osmosis that this is being done, it is shameful and it needs to be stopped and it needs to have an end put to it.

Now, if the gentleman has specific objections to anything being done in Alaska, he should have taken it up with the gentleman from Alaska. That is minimum courtesy in this body. But to come on the floor and make the kind of accusations that are made today is an insult to the gentleman from Alaska and an insult to the Appropriations Committee and an insult to the House of Representatives.

If there are objections to anything in the next one that comes up, I hope that whoever offers that amendment with Hawaii would have had the courtesy to sit down with me and with Representative Hirono and specifically state what

their objections were, so that we might be able to accommodate them, had they legitimacy and foundation. That is the minimum we can expect from one another.

This is a shameful process. I hadn't realized until right now that we could solve the educational problems in this country if we could just keep those Alaskan kids from getting a dime for any program that has been put together by Representative Young and the local educators in Alaska.

Madam Speaker, I regret that I had to return to my district early and missed rollcall vote no. 584 through vote no. 606. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 584, 596, and 606. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote 585, 586, 587, 588, 589, 590, 591, 592, 593, 594, 595, 597, 598, 600, 601, 602, 603, 604, and 605.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I'm sure Mr. Dicks wishes by this time that this moratorium would disappear as an issue because it keeps coming up.

I will certainly yield.

That may be, and that makes my point. I certainly was not among the ones to create it; but I'll tell you, had I been here in 1984, I probably would have voted for it. I voted for these kinds of things before without thinking much about it because it was an easy vote, it was an easy vote as to come and say, well, environmental groups, they all know all about this, why get crossways with them when you have a good environmental record. I've gotten my awards, too, not because of my bright perception, but because I voted the right way without thinking much about it.

Why is this here in the Interior bill on appropriations? Why do we have members of the committee standing up ahead of time? I don't know that anybody on Appropriations knows more about it than the people on Resources or the Energy Committee. But why? Because we legislate on an appropriations bill, that's why.

And we didn't break any agreements down here. If the agreement was what was being broken, why is this moratorium again being put into the bill this year? If we had an agreement last year, you wouldn't need the moratorium.

And I quite agree on that technical point, that limitations are appropriate. We're trying to put some limitations on some of the fiction that's out here today. I can assure you of that.

I think I know something about tourism. I know that in order to have tourists, you have to have people with jobs that have sufficient discretionary income to be able to come and spend their money. But if we're destroying the industrial structure of this country, which is what we're about right now, there won't be anybody having the jobs to be able to come and spend the money on tourism or anything else.

And if you want them to arrive in automobiles, which we can't do yet because I haven't been able to get an earmark for that bridge from San Francisco to Hawaii, that's a bridge to somewhere, I can assure you, the question then would be, well, what are you going to be paying for your gasoline? You want to have a hybrid car, you're going to have natural gas. You have to have natural gas as the base. You want to have ethanol to be able to do it? You have to have natural gas for the fertilizer that's going to grow the feedstocks in order to create the ethanol.

Natural gas is the natural energy bridge to a natural energy future, to an alternative energy future. If we don't have natural gas, let me tell you what's going to happen. It's happening right now, and there has been references to it already. Europe and Russia are now making a deal to promote natural gas exploration and extrication from Russia to the European economy, to the European Union in the hundreds of billions of gallons in order to be able to compete with us. It's not just mythology that the Chinese, using inferior technology, will be some 45 miles off of Florida right now exploring natural gas, as the Canadians are already doing on the other side of the Great Lakes.

Every single industrial country in this world is producing natural gas right now except us. We are the ones that destroying ourselves, committing suicide on this. This is what is happening; the rest of the world is going to have an industrial base and an industrial complex that's able to compete, and we're destroying ourselves.

You're looking at a convert here. I went into the Resources Committee fully prepared to not only sustain the moratorium that's here, but to vote against Mr. Peterson when he first brought up the idea of drilling for natural gas. But when I listened to him and I read all the facts involved, I decided that I had the wrong position. And what's required of us now is to become energy independent. We have to produce the energy in this country that is going to allow us to be independent, sufficient to be able to back up that Defense Department that we're talking about. The Air Force right now is spending an enormous amount of money on fuel that we have to import. If we can take the natural gas base for the Air Force right now, we stand a chance of producing fuel that can sustain ourselves.

We have to be energy independent in this country. And that means those of who us who have blindly supported, what were supposedly the right environmental proposals in the past have

to take an honest look at where we are today and what we can do to produce clean energy.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the time. I hope that when we get past this today, that we will deal with the bill that Mr. Peterson and I will be bringing forward to produce natural gas in this country to produce a free and independent America.

Mr. Chairman, I want to support my friend Mr. Peterson on this amendment.

I indicated in the last amendment, Mr. Chairman, that I had become a convert, not to everything that has to do with it, to just stand up and say, well, if it is going to be oil drilled anywhere or gas drilled anywhere, that I could care less, that doesn't make any difference. That is not true, and it is not the case.

In fact, what I have argued to the oil companies is, and I have said when I had the opportunity, why do you put these stupid ads in the paper that say we only make a return on investment the same as real estate agents? I said, there is a great way to go about saying why you got $30 billion in profits, that real estate agents are the opposition or the comparison.

I say, why don't you get up and say oil is $60 and $70 a barrel. We are rolling in money. We got so much money we don't know what to do with it. I feel like Huey, Louie and Dewey jumping into the piles of money for Scrooge McDuck. We got so much money we can't even begin to figure out how to spend it.

At that kind of money a barrel, what do you think the oil companies are going to make?

We have to have an energy supply in this country, and 100 miles out that is what we are going to have to do, because the opposition keeps on coming here against our energy independence. If we don't have energy independence, we are finished. We are destroying ourselves. Every other country in the world with a natural gas reserve out there, let alone with an oil supply, especially in the Outer Continental Shelves of their respective continents, are taking it and doing it and providing for their industrial expansion. That is what we are up against.

We are now in debt. You only have to go into the papers as recently as yesterday, the next globalization backlash. Wait until the Kremlin starts buying our stocks. We are in hock to the rest of the world, including Japan and China because they are owning this country because we have to import our energy. Energy independence is the key to freedom.

Madam Speaker, I regret that I was unavoidably detained in my district on Monday and Tuesday of this week and missed rollcall vote No. 119 through vote No. 126. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 499, 500, and 501. On Tuesday, June 19, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall votes 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510 and 511.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 406, celebrating the accomplishments of title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, also known as the Patsy Takemoto Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act, and recognizing the need to continue pursuing the goal of educational opportunities for women and girls.

Title IX changed the way the United States educates its women and girls. It states that, ``No person in the United States, shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.'' This monumental legislation has had far-reaching effects on the women in this country. Title IX may be best known for its changes in athletics, but the academic world has been significantly changed as well. Since 1981, women have received more bachelor's degrees than men, and since 1986, women have received more master's degrees than men. None of this would have been possible without the hard work of Patsy Mink and Edith Green. Generations of women have and will benefit from the work of these women.

I had the honor of serving with Patsy Mink for 12 years, representing the State of Hawaii

in the U.S. House of Representatives. She strove to ensure equality and fairness for all Americans. Through her work on title IX, she was able to accomplish just that for every American woman. The renaming of title IX to the Patsy Takemoto Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act honors her work and reminds us all of her dedication to equality.

We should take this time to reflect on where we have come from and the progress we have made. Millions of women have access to the education to make their dreams come true, and that access was guaranteed 35 years ago by a woman who believed that we should all be able to better our lives.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in the wake of news that comes to us that the United States will now have as a policy in Iraq the arming of Sunni groups who have admittedly killed and maimed Americans. We have now reached the point of public-political lunacy.

Representative Paul, myself, Representative Jones and others have entered a bill for consideration of the House that will cause us to have to reauthorize this war. Any conceivable reason for having allowed the President to enter into this war with the enabling resolution that we passed has now been accomplished; any ``whereas,'' any ``be it resolved'' of that resolution is now moot.

In order for any of us to justify spending one more penny or committing one more soldier of the United States into this war, we have to have an up-or-down vote on whether it should be authorized.

Arming Sunni groups that have murdered U.S. service men and women as a policy, a strategy, is without merit and devoid of any political sensibility.

Madam Chairman, let's go over what this does do and why it's here.

This amendment places a 1-year ban on flag and general officers in the Armed Services from receiving compensation from any company that does greater than $50 million in business with the Department of Defense. The rationale is very, very straightforward. It assures that large corporations, relying on DOD business, do not take advantage of loopholes in the post-employment ethics laws right now. That's what this is addressing, what exists right now.

Current laws govern conduct-based actions. Conduct-based actions and restrictions that are in there now are meaningless because there's what's called behind-the-scenes and in-house provisions. I didn't make this up. This is what's going on right now. If I'm going to get lectured on ethics, let's talk about ethics. Former flag and general officers cannot overtly attempt to influence government officials. We know that. The $50 million ensures that small businesses seeking access to the DOD market are protected and people can go to work for them.

It does not impact officers pay grade O-6 and below. We are talking about the top people up here making the top money making the top decisions with Department of Defense organizations.

The amendment protects senior officers from large DOD prime contractors seeking to gain undue influence during their time in service. You think you walk out the door of the Pentagon and down the stairs and by immaculate conception can go to work for one of these DOD corporations and not have tried to influence that job beforehand or negotiate that job before you walk out the door?

Take public universities. From the publication that just came out in March of 2007, of all the universities in the country, only two universities in the country are doing more than $50 million worth of business. So that is open that you can go to.

Dwight Eisenhower, more than 40 years ago, way back in 1961, warned us about the military industrial complex that was emerging in our country. And I am quoting: ``Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions.''

I think President Eisenhower's words speak for themselves. The amendment speaks for itself. This is an implementation of an ethics rule that should apply to the Pentagon, and I would think that people of goodwill would want to embrace it.

Would you yield? You are pointing your finger at me.

I support your amendment; so leave me out of it. It is unfair for you to do that.

Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment which places a one-year ban on flag and general officers of the Armed Services from receiving compensation from any company that does greater than $50 million in business with the Department of Defense.

This ban will take place 120 days from the enactment of the legislation.

The rationale is to ensure former flag and general officers and large corporations relying on DoD business do not take advantage loopholes in the post-employment ethics laws.

Current laws governing conduct-based actions and restrictions are meaningless because of ``behind-the-scenes'' or ``in-house'' provisions where former flag/general officers cannot overtly attempt to influence government officials, but can provide an unfair business advantage by providing their new colleagues in the private sector with valuable knowledge immediately after leaving the Department of Defense.

The $50 million ceiling ensures small businesses seeking access to the DoD market are not restricted from hiring former general or flag officers as employees or consultants. Moreover, this does not impact officers paygrade O-6 and below.

Why include all flag and general officers? While not all flag and general officers are involved in procurement, they can be involved in the development of future military systems and operational requirements or have ``official responsibility'' for an acquisition program.

This amendment will protect senior officers from large DoD prime contractors seeking to gain undue influence during their time in service. The ``prime'' contractors in the DoD industry are so pervasive and ingrained that they have been referred to as ``quasi-agencies'' in the media. One private company received over $24 billion in DoD contracts, an amount equal to the budget request for the Department of Justice for Fiscal Year 2008 budget request totals $24.02 billion.

Another concern is the impact on the ability of these former officers to teach at universities. Well over 1,000 schools are listed in the Federal Science and Engineering Support to Universities, Colleges and Nonprofit Institutions: FY 2004 Report released March 2007--only two schools received more than $50 million in DoD funds (Johns Hopkins and University of Texas at Austin).

I urge my colleagues to support closing loopholes in our ethics laws and vote in favor of this amendment.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, as disappointing as it may be for all the Members that I will not now deliver an oration, I will submit a formal statement on the work of the Air and Land Forces Subcommittee. I thank my good friend, colleague and mentor, Mr. Saxton, and all the Members, Republican and Democratic alike, on the Air and Land Forces Subcommittee.

Madam Chairman, I have the honor of serving as the Chairman of the Air and Land Forces Subcommittee.

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

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

We cannot shortchange the current force for promised future capabilities when we are losing people everyday in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Air and Land Forces subcommittee's jurisdiction in this bill includes approximately $100 billion in Army and Air Force programs.

Our priorities do not always agree with those of the Pentagon, but our objective is clear--to do our very best to ensure our military personnel get the best available equipment as soon as it can be properly tested--armored vehicles; body and vehicle armor; improvised explosive device jammers, unmanned aerial vehicles, small arms, night vision equipment, and related equipment.

The bill addresses a number of key requirements:

H.R. 1585 provides $4.1 billion in additional funds to fully fund a tactical vehicle referred to as M-RAP, or Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle, to better protect our personnel against mines and improvised explosive devices. The budget request included less than $500 million to meet this $4.6 billion requirement which, as of last week, is now Secretary Gates' number one priority.

Over a billion dollars is provided for Stryker combat vehicles.

The bill fully funds body armor, Up-Armored Humvees, Armored Security vehicles, and vehicle add armor kits at $5.4 billion.

The bill also provides $4.5 billion for programs established to counter improvised explosive devices.

An additional billion dollars is provided for funding of National Guard and Reserve Equipment.

Overall, the bill represents an increase of 40 percent for Army procurement accounts over last year's budget request.

Ten C-17 strategic airlift aircraft have been added to the bill at a cost of over $2.4 billion, to maintain the C-17 production line and sustain the strategic airlift fleet.

The Joint Strike Fighter competitive engine program has been funded at $480 million to provide two producers of engines for that program.

We have had to make some difficult choices to fund the highest priority programs and stay within the budget top-line. Some programs will have to make adjustments. We understand that, and will work together as the process evolves to ensure that these adjustments can be accommodated as best as possible. In closing, I again want to thank my distinguished chairman and ranking members of the full committee and our subcommittee.

This bill is deserving of a ``yes'' vote from every Member of this body.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

How much time has to pass before you get to stand up and ask for a vote after you've already ruled? You can't stand there forever and do that. Now let's run this thing right. The vote's over.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of Asian Pacific American (APA) Heritage Month. As you know May is designated as APA Heritage Month, and this year's theme is ``Meeting the Challenges for Asian Pacific Americans.'' One of the central challenges is the need for comprehensive immigration reform.

I serve as the Immigration Task Force Chairman of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC). The caucus includes members who are of Asian Pacific descent and those who represent Congressional Districts with significant APA populations, like the First District of Hawaii.

The Immigration Task Force is CAPAC's main voice on this important and timely issue. Right now, APAs face an immigration backlog that has forced many families to live for years apart from their loved ones. For example, Filipinos must wait 23 years before United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) even examines their applications for a brother or sister from the Philippines. Furthermore, 1.5 million Asians live in the U.S. as undocumented immigrants. They live in the shadows without access to basic services, and are vulnerable to exploitation.

As Task Force Chairman, I have made it a priority for CAPAC to support Comprehensive Immigration Reform. True immigration reform not only helps us secure our borders, but addresses the issues of family reunification and earned legalization for undocumented immigrants. With that concern, I cosponsored H.R. 1645, the ``Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy (STRIVE) Act of 2007,'' and I am working now to get members of CAPAC to support this bill.

The ``STRIVE Act'' would help eliminate the family backlog by no longer counting spouses and minor children of naturalized citizens against the worldwide cap on family-based immigration. That means remaining visas can reduce the backlog for the other classes of family- based immigrants. Such a move not only serves as a humane gesture, but upholds our core family values.

The ``STRIVE Act'' also addresses the concerns of the undocumented immigrants, providing for earned legalization, which means that people would be allowed to emerge from the shadows. Illegal immigrants would have to pay fines and back taxes, pass criminal background checks, and meet English and civics learning requirements. Contrary to the rhetoric, these immigrants would not jump ahead of those who have pending legal visa applications, but would instead have to wait their turn. Furthermore, they would not count against either the family-based or employment-based immigration caps.

While not perfect, the ``STRIVE Act'' is an excellent start to solving the immigration reform problem. As we celebrate the contributions of APAs to the nation, we must rededicate ourselves to a new direction; to meet the challenges faced by APA families. That is how we open the door to the American dream to all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H. Res. 355, a resolution recognizing and welcoming the leaders of the Pacific Islands to Washington, D.C., and commending the East-West Center for hosting the Pacific Islands Conference of Leaders.

The United States has always had a unique relationship to the Pacific Islands. Not only do they help play a key role in the fight against terrorism, but these governments also aid the U.S. in its overall security. Furthermore, both the U.S. and the Pacific Islands rely on the vast resources of the Pacific basin; these resources while enormous are not unlimited, and management requires cooperation across all of our governments. These islands also work closely with the U.S. on an important environmental and security concern, global climate change, which has the potential to drastically affect all who depend on the Pacific for their livelihood. Furthermore, trade, tourism, and other economic ties further reveal the interdependence between the Pacific Islands and the U.S. The resolution before us recognizes these factors.

As we mark Asian Pacific American (APA) Heritage month, we would also be remiss to not point out that Americans of Pacific Island decent are a rapidly growing ethnic group within the U.S. They add strength to our communities with their diversity and values, and they make important contributions to the U.S. as a whole. The resolution also mentions this important fact.

Furthermore, the resolution discusses the importance of the East-West Center, which runs the Conference of Leaders. Congress established the East-West Center, which is based in my district, in 1960. The East-West Center seeks to establish a dialogue between the peoples and nations of Asia, the Pacific, and the U.S. The East-West Center provides a home for academics who perform vital research that helps all parties better understand each other's history and culture. The Center's Education and Outreach sphere helps disseminate what researchers learn to the broader public and to policymakers. Finally, the Center provides important dialogue programs. Under the effective leadership of Dr. Charles Morrison, the East-West Center continues to address the challenges of the Asian-Pacific 21st Century.

Established in 1980 the East-West Center's Pacific Islands Conference of Leaders grows out of these dialogue programs. It seeks to bring together leaders from the region to discuss many of the issues I mentioned earlier. In the era of growing interdependence between the U.S. and Pacific Island governments, both the work of the Center and the Conference of Leaders becomes more important.

I urge my colleagues to support both this resolution, and provide continued support to the East-West Center.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support legislation that has been introduced by my colleague, Congresswoman Bordallo. H.R. 1595, 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 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.

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. 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 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.

We are virtually at the end of our remarks, so it would probably be useful, Madam Speaker, to reiterate from last evening's proceedings.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I will just recapitulate for a couple of moments, then perhaps we can move to the conclusion.

I indicated last night, and I think it was agreed to by Mr. Bachus of Alabama and others, by way of material that has been entered into the Record, like Mr. Renzi of Arizona, that this should not be a partisan fight. In fact, ``fight'' probably is the wrong word, but, I mean, even a disagreement here.

The reason that this bill passed overwhelmingly last week, with significant support from the Republican side of the aisle, was that it was supported in committee by Republicans and Democrats. The bill is here before the Congress as a result of a request by Hawaii's Republican Governor, and the former Chair of the Hawaii Republican Party, who is now the head of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands.

We have always had legislation in this area based on the underlying law, which was passed in 1921, by the Congress, setting aside certain lands for Hawaiians. The issue before us is about refinancing of home mortgages. This is not about whether the original law, under which the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands was established, it is constitutional.

On the contrary, that issue has been raised, and it perhaps should be raised in another context; namely, if someone wants to change the underlying law. But we should not punish my constituents or anybody's constituents for the fact that they appear before us in the form of a bill trying to carry forward on the admonitions required of them, in this instance, by the Department of Housing and Urban Development in order to get their mortgages refinanced.

Let me say, just as recently as February 9 of this year, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against a group of individuals who came before the court, saying that funding for programs that benefit Hawaiians, in this instance, of this bill, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, constitutes an unconstitutional discrimination against non- Hawaiians.

The Federal appeals court ruled that was not the case. In fact, they returned it to the U.S. District Court to see if the plaintiffs were eligible ``in any

other capacity.'' That is to say, other than whether it was constitutional.

So we have, as recently as the last 30 days, appeals court admonitions that the constitutionality of having programs for Hawaiians is, in fact, constitutional.

If someone wants to argue that, please let's argue it on the basis of a bill that addresses that itself, rather than the bill which is before us, which has to do with the refinancing of mortgages. Please don't punish people that are trying to own their own homes, to keep their own homes, because of some ideological difference that we might have.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to support the final passage of H.R. 835, the Hawaiian Homeownership Opportunity Act of 2007.

Opponents of this bill believe this program may be unconstitutional based upon a mistaken interpretation of Rice v. Cayetano. But Rice v. Cayetano was a voting rights case. The question put to the Court was whether limiting the right to vote for trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to Native Hawaiians violated the 15th amendment. The court in Rice specifically declined to rule on the status of Native Hawaiians and Native Hawaiian programs created by Congress.

Moreover, this bill and these programs have never been a partisan issue in the past. This reauthorization and improvements were requested by Hawaii's Republican administration and Governor Linda Lingle. The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands is chaired by the former head of Hawaii's State Republican Party. This bill was introduced last year by Congressman Bob Ney and was reported out of the Financial Services Committee by voice vote and without amendment. Last Congress's Republican chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Mike Oxley, cosponsored this bill.

I mention these pieces of background information to illustrate the wide support for the program and the fact that it has been both Democratic and Republican. Last week, when this bill was up for consideration in the House under a suspension of the rules, the GOP leadership issued a statement just hours before the vote, calling the bill ``unconstitutional'' and charged that it would ``confer on Native Hawaiian an arrangement like that between the federal government and American Indian tribes.'' Despite these charges, the bill was able to garner 34 Republican votes.

The status of Native Hawaiians needs to be debated and should be debated in the House. However, this is the wrong venue for that. I have another bill pending in the House of Representatives that would establish a process for the Federal recognition of Native Hawaiians. I hope to have this legislation considered by the House Natural Resources Committee and will gladly debate these issues at that time.

This measure is about helping low-income Native Hawaiians own their own home. The programs reauthorized by H.R. 835 simply provide funds for infrastructure, helps Native Hawaiians obtain mortgages and allows for refinancing to lower the cost of homeownership. This bill is about assisting Native Hawaiians to reach the American dream of owning their own home.

I believe this bill can, and should, pass with overwhelming bipartisan support. I urge my colleagues to vote for final passage of this bill and support efforts to get more low-income people into their own homes.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 269, I call up the bill (H.R. 835) to reauthorize the programs of the Department of Housing and Urban Development for housing assistance for Native Hawaiians, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material thereon.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to H.R. 835, I would first like to thank very much Chairman Barney Frank and Ranking Member Spencer Bachus for their consideration of H.R. 835.

It is imperative, from the point of view of Representative Hirono and myself, that we regard this bill as nonpartisan in nature. And it was considered that way in committee, and I am grateful for it.

The bill was passed overwhelmingly last week 262-162. It was under the Suspension Calendar and did not receive a sufficient number of votes for the two-thirds required margin, so we find the bill before us this evening.

Of those 162 Republicans who voted ``no'' last week, 39 of them cosponsored the bill to create the Native Hawaiian Housing Title in the 106th Congress, including our good friend, Mr. Bachus, and minority leader John Boehner.

This reauthorization and improvements were requested by Hawaii's Republican Governor, Linda Lingle. The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands is chaired by the former head of the State's Republican Party.

This bill was introduced last year by Congressman Ney and was reported out of the Financial Services Committee by voice vote without amendment. And last year's Republican chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Mike Oxley, was also a cosponsor of the bill.

I bring these things up, Mr. Speaker, to emphasize that never have we ever considered this bill to be a partisan bill, a Republican or Democratic bill. This is a bill that affects constituents, regardless of their political affiliation, and is not ideological in nature. It is really administrative in nature.

There have been some discussions and some arguments concerning some of the constitutional issues that have been raised in other contexts about native people. This is not the venue to have that kind of a discussion or argument. We do not want to harm those who come before us for legislative redress and expect to have it and not expect to have an argument in which they will become grist for an ideological mill, grist for a disputation of an academic nature or of a philosophical nature, having nothing to do with the question at hand, in this instance, most particularly dealing with homeownership, mortgages, and refinancing.

I understand, and will defer to Mr. Bachus on this point, that Mr. Renzi has made a statement of support in addition, and I expect to hear about that when we yield to Mr. Bachus for his participation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize again that this is not a partisan bill. It is not really anything that should be considered other than on the merits of the subject matter at hand.

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

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

Briefly, Mr. Speaker, I am also very grateful to Mr. Bachus for his commentary and his observations and will indicate that, at least as far as this Member is concerned, there will be time enough, I believe, tomorrow to deal with the question should there be a recommittal offered on the issues that were raised by either the Campbell amendment or any of the other points that were raised as a basis or foundation for possible opposition to the bill. I believe they can be answered.

I believe that this is fundamentally a very conservative approach that merits the support of Members across the various ideological spectrums that exist here in the House of Representatives; and I hope, with the opportunity to speak about them at some length, perhaps tomorrow, that we will be able to

satisfy one and all here on the floor that this is a bill worthy of support.

The principal thing I would say, just simply in quick response, is that the Rice versus Cayetano decision which was mentioned does not affect these programs, has literally nothing to do with the issue at hand in this H.R. 835. The decision invalidated an election system for a State agency, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, a State agency. The decision did not affect the agency itself. It did not even question the validity of the agency. It had to do with the question of who could vote for the trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

The Office of Hawaiian Affairs still exists today. It exists for the benefit of Native Hawaiians and is voted on by the entire voting population of the State of Hawaii. So it had to do with an election issue and absolutely nothing to do with this, and the Court declined to address the question of Native Hawaiian programs authorized by Congress. So we are dealing with an entirely separate set of issues here, and I hope to make that clear tomorrow.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to Representative Hirono.

Mr. Speaker, I am again very appreciative of Mr.

Bachus for his perception, his perspective, and his judgment with regard to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time except for 5 minutes.