Neil Abercrombie

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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.

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

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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. ABERCROMBIE. 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. ABERCROMBIE. 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. ABERCROMBIE. 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. ABERCROMBIE. 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.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I am hoping that some of the misconceptions or misperceptions that might be out there can be alleviated, because I don't believe that this should be considered a controversial bill in any way. There are some issues with respect to questions about favoritism or reverse discrimination, et cetera. Some of these issues have been raised in other contexts. But in this particular instance, simply because the word or the phrase Native Hawaiian is attached, I hope that it doesn't confuse the issue. I have just had the opportunity to speak with Mr. Boehner, and I believe that we have an understanding about what is at stake here. Let me make very, very clear what we are talking about. It reauthorizes a Native Hawaiian housing block grant through 2012. Now, these funds are used for infrastructure development and homeownership assistance under a program that is administered by the State of Hawaii as the result of Federal legislation in the last century. The bill that is on the floor today did not originate with Representative Hirono or myself, but is as a result of the request of the Hawaiian Homes Commission and its chairman, under the leadership of Governor Lingle, Governor Linda Lingle, who is a Republican. The reason I bring that up is not to cite that for special consideration, but rather that this is not a Democrat and Republican issue. This is an institutional issue that whoever is Governor, and whoever are the commissioners, in this instance happen to be Republican, appointed by a Republican Governor. Those folks are obligated institutionally to bring these issues to the Congress for final adjudication because of the unique status, the unique legal status of the Hawaiian Home Lands. The Hawaiian Home Lands were created by the Congress as a result of legislation put forward by the original delegate from the Hawaiian Islands to the Congress, Prince Kuhio, Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalaniana'ole, for whom the Federal building is named where I have my offices in Honolulu, the PJKK. Mr. Renzi may refer to the PJKK Federal Building. He was a Republican at the time, and as a result of his presentation, the original Hawaiian Home Lands were created. It enables Hawaiian families on Hawaiian Home Lands under this unique legal status to be able to acquire private financing they otherwise can't get because they are under this legal admonition to go through the Hawaiian Homes Commission. So it allows the Hawaiian Home Lands, the Department, to be eligible for loan guarantees to borrow, issue bonded debt, enabling servicing up to five times their annual allocation. This allows the Department to service low-income families without a large increase in Federal appropriations. That's the whole idea of it. It allows low-income Hawaiians to get their refinancing in addition to construction. It reduces the cost of homeownership, and it reduced risk by lowering monthly mortgage payments. That is what this is about. It's no special consideration. It is fulfilling the law as it exists.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, what remains for me is to express my gratitude to Mr. Renzi and also to Mr. Kildee and the Native American Caucus for helping all of us to understand what the issues are here. And also, I want to reiterate my thanks to Mr. Boehner for his open- mindedness and his attitude of being willing to listen on issues that might otherwise have been easily misunderstood. I am grateful also to Mr. Cole of Oklahoma for his participation and for his leadership in again helping us to discern issues that are of distinct advantage, not just to our particular constituents in Hawaii, but on the whole issue of how we are able to help people achieve homeownership, achieve an opportunity not to be dependent on government, but rather to be able to participate in the American Dream, the overall American Dream in a way that has genuine meaning for them and their families. I am very pleased to see that this has not become a partisan issue, and that it has not ended up dividing us when we should, in fact, be united in our opportunity to minimize the effect of government having bad consequences for people, and maximizing the opportunity for the ordinary individual and the ordinary individual's family to be able to advance the family's cause. In this particular instance then, Mr. Speaker, I am very, very pleased that we are able to move forward on this, and I hope that the vote will be a solid one and that we can move forward to other issues not only where homeownership is concerned, but advancing the capacity of families to be able to succeed in the American Dream. I would like to express my gratitude to the gentlelady from California, and express my thanks to her for the leadership of her and her committee in bringing this forward. Again, Mr. Speaker, before I close, my deep respect for and gratitude to Mr. Renzi and for all those who helped bring this forward on the Republican side of the aisle.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, I regret that I was unavoidably detained in my district this week and missed rollcall vote No. 119 through vote No. 126. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 119, 120, 121 and 122. On Wednesday, March 7, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall 123 and ``yea'' on rollcalls 124, 125 and 126.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, the following 1984 speech by former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger provides an important perspective on the use of military force in Iraq. The Uses of Military Power'' (By Caspar W. Weinberger) Thank you for inviting me to be here today with the members of the National Press Club, a group most important to our national security. I say that because a major point I intend to make in my remarks today is that the single most critical element of a successful democracy is a strong consensus of support and agreement for our basic purposes. Policies formed without a clear understanding of what we hope to achieve will never work. And you help to build that understanding among our citizens. Of all the many policies our citizens deserve and need to understand, none is so important as those related to our topic today the uses of military power. Deterrence will work only if the Soviets understand our firm commitment to keeping the peace, . . . and only from a well-informed public can we expect to have that national will and commitment. So today, I want to discuss with you perhaps the most important question concerning keeping the peace. Under what circumstances, and by what means, does a great democracy such as ours reach the painful decision that the use of military force is necessary to protect our interests or to carry out our national policy? National power has many components, some tangible, like economic wealth, technical pre-eminence. Other components are intangible such as moral force, or strong national will. Military forces, when they are strong and ready and modern, are a credible and tangible addition to a nation's power. When both the intangible national will and those forces are forged into one instrument, national power becomes effective. In today's world, the line between peace and war is less clearly drawn than at any time in our history. When George Washington, in his farewell address, warned us, as a new democracy, to avoid foreign entanglements, Europe then lay 2- 3 months by sea over the horizon. The United States was protected by the width of the oceans. Now in this nuclear age, we measure time in minutes rather than months. Aware of the consequences of any misstep, yet convinced of the precious worth of the freedom we enjoy, we seek to avoid conflict, while maintaining strong defenses. Our policy has always been to work hard for peace, but to be prepared if war comes. Yet, so blurred have the lines become between open conflict and half-hidden hostile acts that we cannot confidently predict where, or when, or how, or from what direction aggression may arrive. We must be prepared, at any moment, to meet threats ranging in intensity from isolated terrorist acts, to guerrilla action, to full-scale military confrontation. Alexander Hamilton, writing in the Federalist Papers, said that it is impossible to foresee or define the extent and variety of national exigencies, or the correspondent extent and variety of the means, which may be necessary to satisfy them. If it was true then, how much more true it is today, when we must remain ready to consider the means to meet such serious indirect challenges to the peace as proxy wars and individual terrorist action. And how much more important is it now, considering the consequences of failing to deter conflict at the lowest level possible. While the use of military force to defend territory has never been questioned when a democracy has been attacked and its very survival threatened, most democracies have rejected the unilateral aggressive use of force to invade, conquer or subjugate other nations. The extent to which the use of force is acceptable remains unresolved for the host of other situations which fall between these extremes of defensive and aggressive use of force. We find ourselves, then, face to face with a modern paradox: The most likely challenge to the peace--the gray area conflicts--are precisely the most difficult challenges to which a democracy must respond. Yet, while the source and nature of today's challenges are uncertain, our response must be clear and understandable. Unless we are certain that force is essential, we run the risk of inadequate national will to apply the resources needed. Because we face a spectrum of threats from covert aggression, terrorism, and subversion, to overt intimidation, to use of brute force, choosing the appropriate level of our response is difficult. Flexible response does not mean just any response is appropriate. But once a decision to employ some degree of force has been made, and the purpose clarified, our government must have the clear mandate to carry out, and continue to carry out, that decision until the purpose has been achieved. That, too, has been difficult to accomplish. The issue of which branch of government has authority to define that mandate and make decisions on using force is now being strongly contended. Beginning in the 1970s Congress demanded, and assumed, a far more active role in the making of foreign policy and in the decision-making process for the employment of military forces abroad than had been thought appropriate and practical before. As a result, the centrality of decision-making authority in the Executive branch has been compromised by the Legislative branch to an extent that actively interferes with that process. At the same time, there has not been a corresponding acceptance of responsibility by Congress for the outcome of decisions concerning the employment of military forces. Yet the outcome of decisions on whether and when and to what degree to use combat forces abroad has never been more important than it is today. While we do not seek to deter or settle all the world's conflicts, we must recognize that, as a major power, our responsibilities and interests are now of such scope that there are few troubled areas we can afford to ignore. So we must be prepared to deal with a range of possibilities, a spectrum of crises, from local insurgency to global conflict. We prefer, of course, to limit any conflict in its early stages, to contain and control it but to do that our military forces must be deployed in a timely manner, and be fully supported and prepared before they are engaged, because many of those difficult decisions must be made extremely quickly. Some on the national scene think they can always avoid making tough decisions. Some reject entirely the question of whether any force can ever be used abroad. They want to avoid grappling with a complex issue because, despite clever rhetoric disguising their purpose, these people are in fact advocating a return to post-World War I isolationism. While they may maintain in principle that military force has a role in foreign policy, they are never willing to name the circumstance or the place where it would apply. On the other side, some theorists argue that military force can be brought to bear in any crisis. Some of these proponents of force are eager to advocate its use even in limited amounts simply because they believe that if there are American forces of any size present they will somehow solve the problem. Neither of these two extremes offers us any lasting or satisfactory solutions. The first undue reserve would lead us ultimately to withdraw from international events that require free nations to defend their interests from the aggressive use of force. We would be abdicating our responsibilities as the leader of the free world responsibilities more or less thrust upon us in the aftermath of World War II war incidentally that isolationism did nothing to deter. These are responsibilities we must fulfill unless we desire the Soviet Union to keep expanding its influence unchecked throughout the world. In an international system based on mutual interdependence among nations, and alliances between friends, stark isolationism quickly would lead to a far more dangerous situation for the United States: we would be without allies and faced by many hostile or indifferent nations. The second alternative employing our forces almost indiscriminately and as a regular and customary part of our diplomatic efforts would surely plunge us headlong into the sort of domestic turmoil we experienced during the Vietnam war, without accomplishing the goal for which we committed our forces. Such policies might very well tear at the fabric of our society, endangering the single most critical element of a successful democracy: a strong consensus of support and agreement for our basic purposes. Policies formed without a clear understanding of what we hope to achieve would also earn us the scorn of our troops, who would have an understandable opposition to being used in every sense of the word casually and without intent to support them fully. Ultimately this course would reduce their morale and their effectiveness for engagements we must win. And if the military were to distrust its civilian leadership, recruitment would fall off and I fear an end to the all- volunteer system would be upon us, requiring a return to a draft, sowing the seeds of riot and discontent that so wracked the country in the '60s. We have now restored high morale and pride in the uniform throughout the services. The all-volunteer system is working spectacularly well. Are we willing to forfeit what we have fought so hard to regain? In maintaining our progress in strengthening America's military deterrent, we face difficult challenges. For we have entered an era where the dividing lines between peace and war are less clearly drawn, the identity of the foe is much less clear. In World Wars I and II, we not only knew who our enemies were, but we shared a clear sense of why the principles espoused by our enemies were unworthy. Since these two wars threatened our very survival as a free nation and the survival of our allies, they were total wars, involving every aspect of our society. All our means of production, all our resources were devoted to winning. Our policies had the unqualified support of the great majority of our people. Indeed, World Wars I and II ended with the unconditional surrender of our enemies. . . . The only acceptable ending when the alternative was the loss of our freedom. But in the aftermath of the Second World War, we encountered a more subtle form of warfare warfare in which, more often than not, the face of the enemy was masked. Territorial expansionism could be carried out indirectly by proxy powers, using surrogate forces aided and advised from afar. Some conflicts occurred under the name of ``national liberation,'' but far more frequently ideology or religion provided the spark to the tinder. Our adversaries can also take advantage of our open society, and our freedom of speech and opinion to use alarming rhetoric and disinformation to divide and disrupt our unity of purpose. While they would never dare to allow such freedoms to their own people, they are quick to exploit ours by conducting simultaneous military and propaganda campaigns to achieve their ends. They realize that if they can divide our national will at home, it will not be necessary to defeat our forces abroad. So by presenting issues in bellicose terms, they aim to intimidate western leaders and citizens, encouraging us to adopt conciliatory positions to their advantage. Meanwhile they remain sheltered from the force of public opinion in their countries, because public opinion there is simply prohibited and does not exist. Our freedom presents both a challenge and an opportunity. It is true that until democratic nations have the support of the people, they are inevitably at a disadvantage in a conflict. But when they do have that support they cannot be defeated. For democracies have the power to send a compelling message to friend and foe alike by the vote of their citizens. And the American people have sent such a signal by re-electing a strong Chief Executive. They know that President Reagan is willing to accept the responsibility for his actions and is able to lead us through these complex times by insisting that we regain both our military and our economic strength. In today's world where minutes count, such decisive leadership is more important than ever before. Regardless of whether conflicts are limited, or threats are ill defined, we must be capable of quickly determining that the threats and conflicts either do or do not affect the vital interests of the United States and our allies. . . . And then responding appropriately. Those threats may not entail an immediate, direct attack on our territory, and our response may not necessarily require the immediate or direct defense of our homeland. But when our vital national interests and those of our allies are at stake, we cannot ignore our safety, or forsake our allies. At the same time, recent history has proven that we cannot assume unilaterally the role of the world's defender. We have learned that there are limits to how much of our spirit and blood and treasure we can afford to forfeit in meeting our responsibility to keep peace and freedom. So while we may and should offer substantial amounts of economic and military assistance to our allies in their time of need, and help them maintain forces to deter attacks against them usually we cannot substitute our troops or our will for theirs. We should only engage our troops if we must do so as a matter of our own vital national interest. We cannot assume for other sovereign nations the responsibility to defend their territory without their strong invitation when our freedom is not threatened. On the other hand, there have been recent cases where the United States has seen the need to join forces with other nations to try to preserve the peace by helping with negotiations, and by separating warring parties, and thus enabling those warring nations to withdraw from hostilities safely. In the Middle East, which has been torn by conflict for millennia, we have sent our troops in recent years both to the Sinai and to Lebanon, for just such a peacekeeping mission. But we did not configure or equip those forces for combat they were armed only for their self-defense. Their mission required them to be and to be recognized as peacekeepers. We knew that if conditions deteriorated so they were in danger, or if because of the actions of the warring nations, their peacekeeping mission could not be realized, then it would be necessary either to add sufficiently to the number and arms of our troops in short to equip them for combat, . . . or to withdraw them. And so in Lebanon, when we faced just such a choice, because the warring nations did not enter into withdrawal or peace agreements, the President properly withdrew forces equipped only for peacekeeping. In those cases where our national interests require us to commit combat force we must never let there be doubt of our resolution. When it is necessary for our troops to be committed to combat, we must commit them, in sufficient numbers and we must support them, as effectively and resolutely as our strength permits. When we commit our troops to combat we must do so with the sole object of winning. Once it is clear our troops are required, because our vital interests are at stake, then we must have the firm national resolve to commit every ounce of strength necessary to win the fight to achieve our objectives. In Grenada we did just that. Just as clearly, there are other situations where United States combat forces should not be used. I believe the postwar period has taught us several lessons, and from them I have developed six major tests to be applied when we are weighing the use of U.S. combat forces abroad. Let me now share them with you: First, the United States should not commit forces to combat overseas unless the particular engagement or occasion is deemed vital to our national interest or that of our allies. That emphatically does not mean that we should declare beforehand, as we did with Korea in 1950, that a particular area is outside our strategic perimeter. Second, if we decide it is necessary to put combat troops into a given situation, we should do so wholeheartedly, and with the clear intention of winning. If we are unwilling to commit the forces or resources necessary to achieve our objectives, we should not commit them at all. Of course if the particular situation requires only limited force to win our objectives, then we should not hesitate to commit forces sized accordingly. When Hitler broke treaties and remilitarized the Rhineland, small combat forces then could perhaps have prevented the holocaust of World War II. Third, if we do decide to commit forces to combat overseas, we should have clearly defined political and military objectives. And we should know precisely how our forces can accomplish those clearly defined objectives. And we should have and send the forces needed to do just that. As Clausewitz wrote, ``no one starts a war or rather, no one in his senses ought to do so without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war, and how he intends to conduct it.'' War may be different today than in Clausewitz's time, but the need for well-defined objectives and a consistent strategy is still essential. If we determine that a combat mission has become necessary for our vital national interests, then we must send forces capable to do the job and not assign a combat mission to a force configured for peacekeeping. Fourth, the relationship between our objectives and the forces we have committed their size, composition and disposition must be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary. Conditions and objectives invariably change during the course of a conflict. When they do change, then so must our combat requirements. We must continuously keep as a beacon light before us the basic questions: ``Is this conflict in our national interest?'' ``Does our national interest require us to fight, to use force of arms?'' If the answers are ``yes,'' then we must win. If the answers are ``no,'' then we should not be in combat. Fifth, before the U.S. commits combat forces abroad, there must be some reasonable assurance we will have the support of the American people and their elected representatives in Congress. This support cannot be achieved unless we are candid in making clear the threats we face; the support cannot be sustained without continuing and close consultation. We cannot fight a battle with the Congress at home while asking our troops to win a war overseas or, as in the case of Vietnam, in effect asking our troops not to win, but just to be there. Finally, the commitment of U.S. forces to combat should be a last resort. I believe that these tests can be helpful in deciding whether or not we should commit our troops to combat in the months and years ahead. The point we must all keep uppermost in our minds is that if we ever decide to commit forces to combat, we must support those forces to the fullest extent of our national will for as long as it takes to win. So we must have in mind objectives that are clearly defined and understood and supported by the widest possible number of our citizens. And those objectives must be vital to our survival as a free nation and to the fulfillment of our responsibilities as a world power. We must also be farsighted enough to sense when immediate and strong reactions to apparently small events can prevent lion-like responses that may be required later. We must never forget those isolationists in Europe who shrugged that ``Danzig is not worth a war,'' and ``why should we fight to keep the Rhineland demilitarized?'' These tests I have just mentioned have been phrased negatively for a purpose they are intended to sound a note of caution that we must observe prior to committing forces to combat overseas. When we ask our military forces to risk their very lives in such situations, a note of caution is not only prudent, it is morally required. In many situations we may apply these tests and conclude that a combatant role is not appropriate. Yet no one should interpret what I am saying here today as an abdication of America's responsibilities either to its own citizens or to its allies. Nor should these remarks be misread as a signal that this country, or this Administration, is unwilling to commit forces to combat overseas. We have demonstrated in the past that, when our vital interests or those of our allies are threatened, we are ready to use force, and use it decisively, to protect those interests. Let no one entertain any illusions if our vital interests are involved, we are prepared to fight. And we are resolved that if we must fight, we must win. So, while these tests are drawn from lessons we have learned from the past, they also can and should be applied to the future. For example, the problems confronting us in Central America today are difficult. The possibility of more extensive Soviet and Soviet-proxy penetration into this hemisphere in months ahead is something we should recognize. If this happens we will clearly need more economic and military assistance and training to help those who want democracy. The President will not allow our military forces to creep or be drawn gradually into a combat role in Central America or any other place in the world. And indeed our policy is designed to prevent the need for direct American involvement. This means we will need sustained Congressional support to back and give confidence to our friends in the region. I believe that the tests I have enunciated here today can, if applied carefully, avoid the danger of this gradualist incremental approach, which almost always means the use of insufficient force. These tests can help us to avoid being drawn inexorably into an endless morass, where it is not vital to our national interest to fight. But policies and principles such as these require decisive leadership in both the Executive and Legislative branches of government and they also require strong and sustained public support. Most of all, these policies require national unity of purpose. I believe the United States now possesses the policies and leadership to gain that public support and unity. And I believe that the future will show we have the strength of character to protect peace with freedom. In summary, we should all remember these are the policies indeed the only policies that can preserve for ourselves, our friends, and our posterity, peace with freedom. I believe we can continue to deter the Soviet Union and other potential adversaries from pursuing their designs around the world. We can enable our friends in Central America to defeat aggression and gain the breathing room to nurture democratic reforms. We can meet the challenge posed by the unfolding complexity of the 1980s. We will then be poised to begin the last decade of this century amid a peace tempered by realism, and secured by firmness and strength. And it will be a peace that will enable all of us ourselves at home, and our friends abroad to achieve a quality of life, both spiritually and materially, far higher than man has even dared to dream.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, as chairman of the Armed Services Committee on Air and Land Forces, my overriding concern on every issue that comes before us is whether and how it supports our men and women in uniform. Every decision about equipment, procurement, training, end strength or budget authorization must meet this test: Does it support our troops? The question before us today, increasing U.S. forces in Iraq by some 21,000 combat troops and somewhere between 3 and 28,000 support personnel fails this test in every respect. Both the immediate and long-term effects of the war in Iraq on our Nation's military preparedness are evident and drastic. Extended deployments, premature redeployments, and sustained combat under unbelievably harsh conditions have taken a terrible toll on our forces and their equipment. The results are an overstretched U.S. Army and Marine Corps with no fully mission-capable Reserve forces, and an urgent need for billions of dollars to repair or replace worn and damaged helicopters, tanks, other armored vehicles, including up-armored Humvees and other equipment. I recently returned from an inspection of two of the Army's busiest repair depots in Corpus Christi, Texas, and Anniston, Alabama. What we saw there were skilled and dedicated employees working feverishly to make sure that our men and women in uniform, particularly those in Iraq and Afghanistan, have every piece of equipment they need to do their jobs and keep themselves safe from harm. What we saw were the results of an administration's abject failure to mobilize this country's industrial base for this war of choice. Only now are we ramping up America's manufacturing capacity to fully support our troops at home and overseas. Smugly self-righteous in its belief that U.S. troops would be targeted with nothing more lethal than rose petals, this administration has been complacent in leaving the burden of the war on the men and women of our Armed Forces, active, Reserve and National Guard. The impact of this attitude hit home for me in Corpus Christi when I read recently about the death in Iraq of a 48-year-old Army sergeant with five children. Newspaper Columnist Dan Thomasson asked: What in the world was a 48- year-old man with five children doing in the military in Iraq? The answer is obvious, he was a member either of the National Guard or the Reserve. The Guard and Reserve are being used in a way never contemplated. Their repeated and sustained deployments turn lives upside down, sometimes permanently, and have a profound impact on families, businesses and whole communities. Why have they been so misused? Because there is not anyone else. Because our active duty force is too small to sustain our engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan. To have acted to ensure the burden of this war would be more broadly shared, that the industrial sector would be mobilized, and the military equipment, supply and maintenance and repair systems put on a war-time footing would have been expensive and an admission of a reality the Bush administration did not want to confront. The real and immediate concern is that forces now being deployed as part of this surge will not have the equipment they need when they get there. They will have to borrow it. We are not fully prepared to respond effectively. The House then is considering an expression of support or opposition to another failure of leadership. Nearly 23 years ago, President Ronald Reagan's Secretary of Defense, Caspar Weinberger, outlined in a speech entitled ``The Uses of Military Power,'' six tests that need to be applied whenever combat forces are contemplated. One: never commit forces unless the particular situation is vital to our national interest or that of our allies. Two: if we are willing to commit the force or resources necessary to win, we should commit them all. Three: we should have clearly defined political and military objectives. Four: the relationship between the objectives and forces, size, composition, disposition, must be continually reassessed and adjusted. Five: we must have the support of the American people and their elected representatives in Congress. Six: the commitment of U.S. troops to combat should be a last resort. President Bush's policies have failed every one of then-Secretary Weinberger's tests. What then are the consequences of this failure? Our troops are in peril. Our credibility is shattered and the lessons of the past are submerged in empty rhetoric and political dribble. Make no mistake, we are engaged in a war of choice, a catastrophe conceived in ideological zeal, cloaked in misinformation and administered with breathtaking incompetence. It is an outrage that we have not had a single policy in Iraq worthy of our men and women in uniform. This surge is yet another misstep in this tragic journey to disaster. We need to end it and end it now.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of legislation I am proud to introduce today. The Hawaiian Homeownership Opportunity Act of 2007 is the exact same language of H.R. 5851, reported out of the House Financial Services Committee on September 28, 2006, in the 109th Congress. The measure reauthorizes existing Native Hawaiian housing programs for 5 years and makes two adjustments to the program that will allow the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands to help more Native Hawaiians whose incomes are equal to or less than 80 percent of the median income. In 2000 Congress passed legislation authorizing the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, to provide block grants for affordable housing for Native Hawaiians through the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. The 2000 measure also authorized HUD home loan guarantees for low-income Native Hawaiians. Eligible borrowers include Native Hawaiian families, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, and private nonprofit organizations experienced in planning and developing affordable housing for Native Hawaiians. The Hawaiian Home Ownership Opportunity Act of 2007 reauthorizes these programs and adds a new provision authorizing loan guarantees for home mortgage refinancing. This introduces greater flexibility and allows families to take advantage of lower interest rates as millions of other American families have. The measure would also permit the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands to issue bonds. This will allow the Department to service more low-income families without a large increase in appropriations. This bill is about homeownership; this is not welfare or public assistance. It offers another tool for a family to provide for a basic need, housing. This is unbelieveably important in Hawaii where land is scarce and the median home price on the island of Oahu is $639,000 and the median condominium price is $310,000. This measure will advance our efforts to address housing affordability in the islands. I would like to thank the House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank and Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity Chairwoman Maxine Waters who have been extremely supportive in dealing with the housing problems of Hawaii. I would also like to recognize my colleague from Hawaii, Congresswoman Mazie Hirono, who, like Chairman Frank and Chairwoman Waters, is a cosponsor of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to help the residents of Hawaii and support this legislation.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, I regret that I was unavoidably detained on Wednesday, January 24, 2007, and missed rollcall no. 56. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, I regret that I was unavoidably detained on Wednesday, January 31, 2007, and missed rollcall No. 68. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill which is a companion measure to legislation introduced by Senator Daniel Akaka in the Senate this morning. This measure is called the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007. The purpose of the bill is to provide a process for the reorganization of the Native Hawaiian governing entity for the purposes of a federally recognized government-to-government relationship. On this day 114 years ago, the monarchy of the Kingdom of Hawaii was overthrown by agents of the United States. This injustice created wounds and issues that have never been healed or resolved. Fourteen years ago, the United States government took a step toward reconciling this part of history by passing a resolution which acknowledged the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii and offered an apology to Native Hawaiians. The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act would take another step in the reconciliation process by providing Native Hawaiians the same right of self-governance and self-determination that are afforded to other indigenous peoples. Since Hawaii was annexed as a territory, the United States has treated Native Hawaiians in a manner similar to that of American Indians and Alaska Natives. This bill would formalize that relationship and establish parity in federal policies towards all of our indigenous peoples. This bill will also provide a structured process to address the longstanding issues resulting from the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. This discussion has been avoided for far too long because no one has known how to address or deal with the emotions that arise when these matters are discussed. There has been no structured process. Instead, there has been fear as to what the discussion would entail, causing people to avoid the issues. Such behavior has led to high levels of anger and frustration, as well as misunderstandings between Native Hawaiians and non-Native Hawaiians. The bill provides a structured process to negotiate and resolve these issues with the federal and state governments and will alleviate the growing mistrust, misunderstanding, anger, and frustration about these matters. This measure is supported by Hawaii's Governor, Linda Lingle, Hawaii's Congressional delegation, and the Hawaii State Legislature. The bill is also supported by a number of organizations in Hawaii who have passed resolutions in support of enacting this bill. I ask my colleagues to support this measure and advance the reconciliation process for our people.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize November's celebration of National Epilepsy Awareness Month. Almost 3 million Americans have epilepsy, a neurological condition that makes people susceptible to seizures. Ten percent of Americans will experience a seizure in their lifetime, and each year, more than 181,000 develop seizures and epilepsy for the first time. Epilepsy affects people of all ages, races, and ethnic backgrounds. The condition can develop at any age, but epilepsy most often occurs in early childhood and old age. It is also important to note that ten percent of all injuries to U.S. soldiers in Iraq are head injuries. Severe head injuries like those incurred during battle and roadside bombings carry a high risk of seizures and epilepsy that, in many cases, can develop months after the initial trauma. Although advances in medical treatment have allowed some individuals with epilepsy to control their illness, more than 40 percent still have persistent seizures, despite all available treatments today. Epilepsy remains a formidable barrier to normal life, affecting educational opportunities, employment, and personal fulfillment. Furthermore, epilepsy continues to be poorly understood by many Americans. Individuals with epilepsy are often misdiagnosed, cannot access the specialists they need, or are the subject of discrimination and prejudice. This cannot continue. National Epilepsy Awareness Month aims to dispel common myths about individuals with epilepsy, increase public awareness and understanding about this serious condition, improve education to ensure faster diagnosis and treatment, and inform people about the services and informational resources available nationwide. Many years ago, my life was turned upside down. Something was wrong with me but my doctor could not identify the cause. Finally, I was diagnosed with epilepsy. This diagnosis brought many challenges, but in my current position as a legislator, it has also brought opportunity. I hope I can be of some influence in directing attention and research to a disorder that has been ignored and misunderstood for too long. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members of Congress to join all Americans with epilepsy, their families, friends, and supporters to do all we can to improve the lives of individuals with epilepsy.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of legislation I am proud to introduce today. The Hawaiian Homeownership Opportunity Act of 2006 is the exact same language of HR 5851, reported out of the House Financial Services Committee on September 28, 2006. The measure reauthorizes existing Native Hawaiian housing programs for five years and makes two adjustments to the program that will allow the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands to help more Native Hawaiians whose incomes are equal to or less than 80 percent of the median income. In 2000 Congress passed legislation authorizing the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to provide block grants for affordable housing for Native Hawaiians through the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. The 2000 measure also authorized HUD home loan guarantees for low-income Native Hawaiians. Eligible borrowers include Native Hawaiian families, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, and private nonprofit organizations experienced in planning and developing affordable housing for Native Hawaiians. The Hawaiian Home Ownership Opportunity Act of 2006 reauthorizes these programs and adds a new provision authorizing loan guarantees for home mortgage refinancing. This introduces greater flexibility and allows families to take advantage of lower interest rates as millions of other American families have. The measure would also permit the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands to issue bonds. This will allow the Department to service more low-income families without a large increase in appropriations. This bill is about homeownership, this is not welfare or public assistance. It offers another tool for a family to provide for a basic need, housing. This is unbelieveably important in Hawaii where land is scarce and the median home price on the island of Oahu is $639,000 and the median condominium price is $310,000. This measure will advance our efforts to address housing affordability in the islands. I would like to thank the House Financial Services Committee, in particular Chairman Mike Oxley and Ranking Member Barney Frank, who have been extremely supportive in dealing with the housing problems of Hawaii. I would also like to recognize my colleague from Hawaii, Congressman Ed Case, who, like Chairman Oxley and Ranking Member Frank, is a cosponsor of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to help the residents of Hawaii and support this legislation.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this year's National Defense Authorization Act. It includes many provisions that are vital to giving our military the tools it needs to defend the nation, although it also leaves much work undone that will have to be addressed in the future. The bill addresses one issue in particular that merits attention. Despite the Pentagon's repeated denials of a military readiness crisis, this bill authorizes an additional $23 billion in funding as a downpayment on the damage to the U.S. Army and Marine Corps from repeated and sustained deployments to Iraq, and the Bush Administration's decision to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through a parade of emergency supplemental appropriations. The wars themselves are wearing down our equipment at a tremendous rate. Further damage is done by supplemental appropriations because the military services are denied the funding they need in a timely and predictable fashion. These two factors are doing serious and longterm damage to the nation's military readiness, and the Congress must address them. During Armed Services Committee deliberations on this bill in March 2006, I offered an amendment to add $42 billion for this reason. Sadly, that amendment was voted down on a party-line vote. I offered the amendment because we had a growing readiness problem and because I thought putting as much of the funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as possible into the base budget was the most honest and effective way to proceed. My approach ended up in the final version of this bill. The $23 billion in this year's bill is a good start, but this funding will have to be sustained in many subsequent bills to address the readiness crisis we continue to face. I am also pleased that this bill includes many important legislative provisions that directly improve the lives of the people of my district and my state. First, it takes the first step toward dealing with the chemical munitions dumped off the coast of Hawaii in the 1940s. These weapons could still pose a serious health and environmental risk, and Section 314 of this bill requires a comprehensive research effort by the military to identify, analyze, and assess the potential threat these sites may pose. Section 2843 of this bill addresses a major land transfer issue in Hawaii regarding the former Barbers Point Naval Air Station. Affordable housing for the people of Hawaii and a new public transit system are critical local issues. This language requires the Navy to turn over an important parcel of land that will allow both new housing and transit development. Balancing the needs of the military and the local population in Hawaii is a challenge, but in this case, I think an arrangement was reached that helps both sides accomplish their goals. I want to thank Chairman Hunter and Chairman Hefley for working with me on this language. Lastly, Section 343 of the bill requires an analysis by the Army of its future live-fire training infrastructure needs in Hawaii. The Army's presence in Hawaii is undergoing tremendous change. A new Stryker Brigade is due to be activated this coming year, and thousands more troops will be coming to Hawaii as part of the larger changes in the military's Pacific region basing posture. Supporting these growing needs while accommodating the cultural, environmental and quality of life concerns of the people of Hawaii is essential. This report will help Congress understand where the Army wants to go in Hawaii with its training infrastructure, and how to get there. In particular, it will address the sensitive issue of the Army's long-term future in the Makua Valley, an area of Hawaii owned by the people of Hawaii and on temporary loan to the military. Eventually, this land must be returned, so the report requires the Army to look beyond its current use of the Makua Valley toward the eventual return of this historic and environmentally sensitive treasure to the people of Hawaii. There are critical quality of life issues that were not resolved. Specifically, it does not do enough to help military families who need the Survivor Benefit Program and Dependency and Indemnity Compensation offset repealed. For me, this is a basic issue of fairness that must be addressed at some point in the future. The bill does not do enough to protect TRICARE health insurance patients from skyrocketing prescription drug prices. The Department of Defense asked for legislative authority to negotiate lower prices with major drug companies. The majority was unwilling to let this provision into the final bill. Finally, the bill before us only provides a 2.2 percent pay raise for the military in 2007. This is meager thanks for our men and women in uniform in a time of war; for those who are experiencing sustained and repeated deployments and absences from their families. As well, this raise is simply too small to help our military families keep up with rising cost of living expenses at many bases around the nation, and especially in Hawaii. We have asked a lot from these men and women. We owe them more in return. I want to now turn to the portion of the bill that falls under the jurisdiction of the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee, on which I am proud to serve as the ranking minority member. This year, the subcommittee had a daunting task: to reconcile a budget submission that was simply unrealistic in some respects when compared to the needs of the military both today and in the future. Our military is clearly being pulled in many directions at once. Today our forces are fighting unconventional wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the demands of which, in terms of equipment, are very different from possible future conventional conflicts. The U.S. military has to be able to fight and win both types of wars, but there is clearly not enough funding for doing everything the services want to do. This bill authorizes critical short-term needs such as modernization of Army equipment in combat today and increased production of aircraft like the C-17 that are absolutely vital to current military operations. The bill also looks to the future in continuing successful aviation and ground systems. Finally, it takes funding from a few programs that are off-track or not working and moves that funding to more pressing needs, ensuring that taxpayer dollars are not wasted. It also demands additional analysis and testing of systems in development that the subcommittee has concerns about. These provisions may discomfort some people at the Pentagon, but it is Congress' duty to oversee these programs and ensure that the troops get what they need. Overall, this year I think the subcommittee did an excellent job. I especially want to commend Chairman Weldon on his leadership of the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee. His willingness to work in an open and nonpartisan manner greatly facilitates the subcommittee's work and produces a better product for our troops and the civilians who serve the nation at the Department of Defense. Finally, another member of this committee deserves special recognition. I worked for many years with Joel Hefley on the Armed Services Committee. He is a both a valued colleague and a close friend. Among his many accomplishments during his distinguished career on this committee, he helped shepherd through one of the most important changes in military housing construction in decades. His vision for leveraging private investment dollars into a massive new program to rebuild and rehabilitate military family housing is now a reality. In my state alone almost ten thousand military homes will be upgraded in the next few years. This housing is a vital part of keeping an all-volunteer military ready, and Joel Hefley was a leader in this revolutionary program. I was and am grateful for the opportunity afforded to me to partner with him in accomplishing passage and implementation of this key legislation enhancing the quality of life of our fighting men and women.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support Congressman Melancon's motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 2864. This motion would direct conferees to accept provisions that will protect coastal communities in Louisiana and Mississippi from the storm surge of a category 5 hurricane. Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf on August 29, 2005, and was a category 3 hurricane that did not even directly hit the affected areas. Yet, Katrina was able to inflict monstrous and unimaginable damage upon Louisiana and the Gulf Coast of Mississippi. One year after Hurricane Katrina, the area remains a terrible, twisted portrait of lives and families and whole communities washed away; home by home, block by block, neighborhood by neighborhood. As a result of Hurricane Katrina: More than 1,000 people died. The total number of immediately displaced people has never been determined. Estimates range from the hundreds of thousands to the millions. The Louisiana parishes of Orleans and St. Bernard were especially hard hit by flooding, with an estimated 77% of Orleans's population affected, and nearly all residents of St. Bernard. In Mississippi, 55% of Hancock County's population is estimated to have been affected by flooding and/or structural damage. In the greater New Orleans area alone, there were 160,000 homes and apartments destroyed or heavily damaged by the storm. The metro New Orleans area has lost approximately 400,000 residents. The National Flood Insurance Program has paid out $17 billion in property damage claims in Louisiana alone, only a fraction of total damage. Hospital capacity in Orleans parish dropped in half immediately after the storm. In St. Bernard, there are still no hospitals open. The Army Corps of Engineers has only begun to raise sinking levees and deal with unfinished hurricane protection and flood prevention projects. But, they're only rebuilding the levees to withstand a Category 3 storm, Katrina's level. Prudent planning and common sense would dictate that they be raised to Category 5 levels to protect the more than two million residents along these coasts. I urge my colleagues to support and vote for this motion to instruct.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the Hawaii State Legislature for increasing penalties for adults who supply alcohol to persons under the legal drinking age of 21. I believe this is one important step toward attacking the supply chain that fuels the national problem of underage drinking. According to authorities, adults are by far the main source of alcohol for underage drinkers. A report to Congress by the National Academy of Sciences identified friends and adult purchasers as the most frequent sources of alcohol among college students and older adolescents. Family members were cited as the most frequent source for younger adolescents. The Century Council, a not-for-profit educational organization dedicated to fighting drunk driving and underage drinking, found that 65 percent of underage drinkers get their alcohol from family and adult friends. Hawaii's new law is among 7 bills that have passed into law and nearly 20 that have been introduced in States throughout our great Nation that link underage drinking and providing alcohol to those under 21 with a penalty relating to the revocation of driving privileges for the offender. Diageo, a large beverage alcohol company, in an example of enlightened corporate citizenship, is among the firms that have led the effort to move this type of legislation in state legislatures throughout the country. As such, many have referred to bills like Hawaii's new law as a ``Diageo Bill.'' The American Legislative Exchange Council has made the ``Diageo Bill'' one of their model pieces of legislation for 2006. I urge all States to pass this type of measure. While only one piece of this important puzzle, the State of Hawaii along with the people at Diageo and those of similarly committed companies should be commended for being a leader in the fight against underage drinking.