Ed Case

Mr. CASE

Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleague from Guam, Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo, as an original cosponsor of the Compact-Impact Reimbursement Act, which she is introducing today. This legislation assists Hawaii and other U.S. jurisdictions with costs associated with migration resulting from the Compact of Free Association between the United States and the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands. The measure is a followup to hearings held by the House Resources and International Relations Committees on renegotiated expiring provisions of the Compact agreement. At the outset, let me say that I fully support our country's continued recognition of the strategic importance of the Freely Associated States to our national security interests in the Western Pacific Region, and the special relationships our countries have shared based on the U.N. trusteeship system as well as mutual respect and friendship. It should come as no surprise that my State of Hawaii continues to have great interest in U.S. policy toward these areas given our geographic proximity and close ties in the Pacific, and thus continues its historic support of the Compacts of Free Association. Having said that, however, we continue also our historic concerns with the U.S. Government's administration and coordination of Federal assistance and policy toward Micronesia, and especially the issue of Compact Impact Aid to Hawaii and other affected U.S. jurisdictions. The Administration has proposed, as part of the renegotiated Compact agreements, $15 million in Compact Impact Aid to be collectively shared by affected U.S. jurisdictions, including Hawaii. This level of assistance is completely inadequate, given the actual costs that all of our jurisdictions have incurred since 1986. Moreover, the Administration has provided no clear justification on where it even came up with the $15 million figure. In fact, in recent years, the Department of Interior has reported that supportable ``best estimates'' in 1997 for fiscal impact costs in our jurisdictions are over $30 million annually. While Hawaii has spent more than $100 million on State benefits to FAS citizens since 1986, it has received less than $10 million in Compact Impact Aid from the Federal Government. In 2002 alone, the State of Hawaii estimates that it has spent over $32 million in assistance for FAS citizens, most on educational costs. I have repeatedly said that since our costs are primarily in the field of education and health care, then other Federal agencies, particularly the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services, should be part of an overall Federal and Compact Impact assistance strategy and program. The easiest route, of course, would be to simply increase the Compact proposal of $15 million to at least $35 million in mandatory spending. Other ways to ameliorate Compact Impact costs include making FAS citizens eligible for key Federal social programs that will offset the costs borne by our jurisdictions and providing our jurisdictions with the clear authority to receive other Federal assistance and make referrals to DOD medical facilities. Today's legislation gives the Administration these other alternatives to providing assistance to our areas. A section-by-section summary of our proposal is as follows: the compact-impact reimbursement act Objective--To amend the Compact of Free Association Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-239) to provide for more adequate Compact-Impact aid to Guam, the State of Hawaii, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), and American Samoa. Section 1. Short Title. The Compact-Impact Reimbursement Act. Section 2. Appropriations and Medicaid Eligibility. Increases Compact-Impact aid to $35 million per year to mitigate impact on Guam, the State of Hawaii, the CNMI, and American Samoa. Funding would be based on a pro rata formula reflecting a census, to be conducted no less than every five years, of citizens of the Freely Associated States (FAS) living in Guam, the State of Hawaii, the CNMI, and American Samoa; would provide FAS citizens who migrate to Guam, Hawaii, the CNMI or American Samoa eligibility for Medicaid. The Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) for providing health services would be 100 percent. Section 3. Food Stamps Eligibility. Would provide FAS citizens who migrate to Guam, the State of Hawaii, the CNMI or American Samoa eligibility for the food stamp program under the Food Stamp Act of 1977. Section 4. Extension of Communicable Disease Control Programs to Affected U.S. Jurisdictions. The Compact of Free Association Act of 1985 would be amended to reauthorize appropriations for grants to the Governments of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Republic of Palau, Guam, the State of Hawaii, the CNMI, and American Samoa. Current law simply authorizes this assistance for the Federated States of Micronesia. Section 5. Extends Referral Authority to Affected U.S. Jurisdictions. Reauthorizes the availability of medical facilities of the Department of Defense (DoD) for FAS citizens upon referral by government authorities responsible for the provision of medical services in the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Republic of Palau, Guam, the State of Hawaii, the CNMI, and American Samoa. Current law only allows use of DoD facilities for FAS citizens currently referred by the governments of the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands. Section 6. Authorizes Reconciliation of Medical Referral Debts. Directs the United States Government to make available to the governments of Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of Palau funds needed to pay obligations incurred for the use of medical facilities in the United States, including in Guam, the State of Hawaii, the CNMI, and American Samoa, prior to October 1, 2003. Under current law, such authorization applies to debt accrued before September 1, 1985. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate my support and, I believe, the support of my State for the Compacts, but also the great importance of adequate Compact Impact Aid to Hawaii, whether by appropriate general funding or legislation such as this or both.

Mr. CASE

Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my heartiest congratulations to the students and teachers of Kahuku Intermediate and High School on the beautiful North Shore of Oahu, HI, on their outstanding achievements in the 2003 We the People: the Citizen and the Constitution National Competition. The We the People: the Citizen and the Constitution national competition is an annual series of contests that not only teaches students the tenets of democracy and constitutionalism, but also actively involves them in the dynamics of democracy at work. This knowledge and firsthand exposure to the workings of our government is critical to developing in our youth a commitment to democratic norms, procedures, and outcomes. In the national finals competition, our Kahuku students demonstrated their superb expertise on Unit Three: Constitution Shapes Institutions, and won an award for achieving the highest cumulative score during the first two days of the national finals. Adriana Alghussein, Daniel Allen, Dexter Bacon, Nicole Cameron, Ariane Cameros, LiHsieh Chen, Anthony Ching, William Ellis, Brook Jones, Shantel Kaululaau, April Kristen Sickler, Bethany Smith, Erika Staples, and Elizabeth Torres from Kahuku Intermediate and High School won under the supervision of their teacher Sandra Cashman, State Coordinator Lyla Berg and District Coordinator Sharon Kaohi. Today, I am proud to congratulate these students from Kahuku Intermediate and High School on their marvelous achievement. I also commend the teachers and parents who made this success possible with their support and warm encouragement.

Mr. CASE

Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy and generate nearly half of our nation's GDP, yet the federal government is shutting small businesses out of the federal contracting process by bundling small contracts together into large megacontracts. In my State of Hawai'i for example, the federal government has created large megacontracts for military housing projects. This allows huge corporations to swoop in and win the contracts, even though Hawai'i's small businesses could do the work. Bundling has put these projects, and many other government contracts, out of the reach of small businesses and forces them to become subcontractors. I have heard from countless small business owners who said subcontracting for a large prime contractor is detrimental to their financial health and unfairly forces them to abide by the large corporations' work rules. Today I introduce a companion bill to S. 633. This bill will strengthen the definition of a bundled contract and prevent federal agencies from circumventing statutory safeguards intended to prevent contract bundling. This is a fair and temperate solution, and I ask for my colleagues' support.

Mr. CASE

Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill to authorize expansion of the Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge on the Island of Kaua`i. This bill is a vital component of one of my principal goals in Congress: to ensure that federal and/or state or private protection is extended to as many of Hawai`i's threatened and irreplaceable areas as possible, both to ensure the survival and recovery of Hawai`i's unique endangered and threatened species and to preserve the remaining unspoiled natural treasures of our beautiful islands for future generations. The Kilauea National Wildlife Refuge, located at the northermnost tip of Kaua`i, was established in 1985. The initial acreage of 31 acres was increased to 203 acres through additional acquisitions in 1993 and 1994. The refuge provides invaluable habitat for many native seabirds, including the Laysan Albatross, the Red-footed Booby, and the Wedge- tailed Shearwater, as well as for the endangered nene (Hawaiian Goose). Native plants have also been reintroduced to the area. The Refuge and its historic lighthouse have become one of Hawai`i's world-class tourist destinations, visited by some 400,000 visitors each year. The proposed expansion area consists of three indispensable land parcels that are currently available for purchase and could be added to the eastern boundary of the Refuge. The Kilauea River runs through the land, which also includes an extensive lo`i (irrigated terrace for traditional cultivation of taro, the staple crop of Native Hawaiians) which could be restored to support endangered Hawaiian water birds, including the Koloa duck, Hawaiian coot, Hawaiian stilt, and Hawaiian moorhen. There is also a high quality estuarine ecosystem at the lower reaches of the river, which includes habitat for endangered birds as well as native stream life, such as the hihiwai (an endemic snail) and o`opu (native goby). The proposed addition also provides an excellent habitat for the nene, Hawai`i's state bird, which was only recently saved from extinction. The beach is also sometimes used by endangered Hawaiian monk seals, and endangered sea turtles nest in the area. These three parcels are available for sale and each of the owners has expressed a desire to see the land protected from development. But given rampant urbanization on Kaua`i (and elsewhere in Hawai`i) and the high demand for waterfront property, we could very well lose this remarkable opportunity to add high quality wildlife habitat to our national refuge system. The Kilauea community strongly supports protecting the land from development. In fact, the Kilauea Point National Wildlife Refuge is a model for management of other federal refuges nationwide. The operations of the Refuge are supported by community volunteers, who give daily tours of the Refuge and help in the preservation of native plant species. The principal volunteer group, Kilauea Point Natural History Association, even has a small store in the Visitor Center, the proceeds of which go to the Refuge and for environmental education throughout Hawaii. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, and invite you to come to the Island of Kaua`i to visit the Refuge. I know that if you did so, you would be convinced as I am of the importance of protecting these lands.

Mr. CASE

Mr. CASE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the committee for what I think is a good bill. My purpose in rising today as this bill goes forward is simply to highlight the absolute dependence on some parts of our country on air service, and thus the absolute importance of the essential air services portion of the law and of this bill, and also the necessity as we go forward of avoiding one-size-fits-all thinking when we deal with the problems of our rural communities in addressing EAS. In fact, imagine a district in which air service is truly indispensable to providing the basic necessities, to transporting residents, to providing emergency medical service, and to the survival and prosperity of our number one industry, tourism, and several other important industries based on, for example, agricultural exports. That is Hawaii today, and that is my second district, a district that has all of Hawaii other than urban Honolulu and is composed of seven inhabited islands. It is absolutely unique. Let me give an example of how this fits into one-size-fits-all thinking. A great deal of discussion is given in essential air services to how far airports are apart from each other, and both the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) are offering amendments which I fully support which deal with how far is an airport. Well, the airport on Molokai is somewhere around 40 miles from Honolulu International Airport. Not too far, but there is no road. No road. It is on another island, so we have to think about unique circumstances. The options are nonexistent, no driving, no highways, no rail, no trains, no Amtrak subsidies, no ferries, cannot do that. It is airplane, period. We are also in a very difficult period of adjustment in our interisland air travel. One airline is now in bankruptcy so we face the possibility of a monopoly with fees increasing and capacity reducing. We do have EAS designation for three extremely rural airports in Hawaii, and that is very appropriate; but I could easily make the argument that all Hawaii airports, big or small, rural or urban, are essentially EAS airports. In conclusion, I simply want to highlight the absolute necessity of EAS to States like Hawaii.

Mr. CASE. Mr. Chairman, my purpose in rising today is to highlight the absolute dependence of some parts of our country on air service and thus the absolute importance of the Essential Air Services (EAS) portions of the law and of this bill, and also the necessity as we go forward of avoiding one-size-fits-all thinking when we deal with the problems of our rural communities in providing EAS. Imagine a district in which air service is truly indispensable to providing the basic necessities, to transporting residents, to providing emergency medical service, and to the survival and prosperity of its number one industry, tourism, and several other important industries like agriculture which are based on exports. That's Hawaii today, and that's my Second District--a district that has all of Hawaii other than urban Honolulu, and is composed of seven inhabited islands--it's absolutely unique. And let me give an example of how this uniqueness doesn't work with one-size-fits-all thinking. A great deal of EAS discussion concerns how far airports are apart from each other. And both Mr. Peterson and Mr. Pitts are offering amendments today, which I fully support, that deal with ``How far apart are airports?'' Well, the airport on Molokai is somewhere around 40 miles from Honolulu International Airport as the crow flies. Not too far. But guess what--no road. No road, it's on another island. So we've got to think about unique circumstances in designing legislation. The options are nonexistent for air service on these islands. No driving, no highways, no rail, no trains, no Amtrak subsidies, no ferries--can't do that. It's air, period! We are also in a very difficult period of adjustment in our interisland air travel. Essentially we've had a duopoly--and one airline is now in bankruptcy so we face the possibility of a monopoly. And fees are increasing rapidly while capacity is decreasing. We do have EAS designation for three extremely rural airports in Hawaii, and that is very appropriate. But I could easily make the argument that all Hawaii airports--big or small, rural or urban--are essentially EAS airports. So in conclusion, I simply want to highlight, as this bill goes forward, the absolute necessity of EAS for states like Hawaii, and to say: think about unique circumstances.

Mr. CASE

Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, just nine months ago, in the middle of her campaign for a thirteenth House term, which she most certainly would have won resoundingly and in fact did win posthumously, the late United States Representative Patsy Takemoto Mink was tragically lost to her beloved Hawai`i, this Congress, our country, and our very world. The days, weeks, and months that followed witnessed a massive outpouring of first shock and disbelief, then sorrow and regret, and finally remembrance and gratitude for this singular life. As just a few examples: A deeply moving memorial service was held in our Hawai`i State Capitol, graciously attended by many of Mrs. Mink's colleagues from this House, including now-Minority Leader Pelosi and Education and the Workforce Ranking Member Miller, and thousands of grateful citizens of Hawai`i and beyond; This House published a beautiful memorial volume containing the many eulogies delivered by Mrs. Mink's colleagues on this House floor, and I want my colleagues to know how deeply grateful the Mink family--husband John, daughter Wendy, brother Eugene--are for that gesture; and The students at the University of Hawai`i Richardson School of Law, on their own initiative, created and funded the Patsy T. Mink Memorial Fellowship for the purpose of providing an internship here in our Congress each year to a person in Mrs. Mink's making; the first Mink Fellow, Van Luong, joined my office last week and, you know, she reminds me of Mrs. Mink. There also were and continued to be a multitude of testimonials on her lasting legislative accomplishments. My colleagues that will follow me and know of her exploits in this arena can tell this story best. But perhaps what struck me most amidst this outpouring were the simple testimonials I heard, as I sought election to what is still referred to as ``Patsy Mink's seat,'' from the ordinary people out across Hawai`i's great Second District; the people she represented and lived for, like: The longtime friend in Lihu`e on Kaua`i, who Patsy, herself sick, visited in the hospital there just days before she herself was admitted; The taro farmers in Kipahulu, Maui, about as remote a place as there is in Hawai`i, who asked Patsy to come and see their problem personally, and she did, donning boots and walking through their lo`i; and The pig hunter in Waimea on the Big Island; he was concerned that she understand an issue and the only way, he thought, was to show her the issue up in the forest; she went. These testimonials, of course can never replace Patsy Mink, although they do demonstrate that our remembrances of her are her own best legacy. But it is entirely appropriate that we all provide a more tangible reminder of her life and times, a memorial that will serve as a constant physical reminder that will cause us to reflect on what she stood for. And so, as I talked about this with John Mink after my election, he relayed his wish, also endorsed by others such as the Maui County Council, that the U.S. Post Office at Pa`ia, Maui be renamed the ``Patsy Takemoto Mink Post Office Building.'' And when you understand Pa`ia where it is and what it represented to Patsy Mink, you understand how entirely appropriate it is that we take this action. Pa`ia is a town on the north shore of Maui, on the slopes of Haleakala, a town built on sugar and pineapple. It is located about a mile from what was once the thriving plantation village of Hamakua Poko, a village of immigrants of Japanese, Portuguese, Filipino and other origins; a village where Patsy Takemoto was born in 1927 and raised in all of the good, and not so good, of Hawai`i and our country in the 1930s and 1940s; a community in which bonds were deep but needs were great. It is also the community in which the old Maui High School was located, the school where Mrs. Mink's political career began when she was elected its first woman student body president, the first of many such firsts, and from which she graduated in 1944 as valedictorian and went on to the incredible life she led. In short, Pa`ia is where this great American was born, where her values were forged, where her spirit was lit. And it represents, both physically and figuratively, the peoples, traditions, and beliefs that she never ever forgot. There is no more fitting memorial to Patsy Takemoto Mink than that she be remembered by us all here in her hometown. For the Mink family and Hawai`i, I thank my 115 co-sponsors. I thank Chair Davis and Ranking Member Waxman for moving this bill through the committee so quickly, I thank those who came here to speak, and for Hawaii I thank this House.

Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I thank both of my colleagues for their very fine comments. Mr. Speaker, just 9 months ago, in the middle of her campaign for a 13th House term, a campaign which she most certainly would have won resoundingly and, in fact, did win posthumously, the late United States Representative Patsy Takemoto Mink was tragically lost to her beloved Hawaii, this Congress, our country, and our world. The days, weeks, and months that followed witnessed a massive outpouring of first shock and disbelief, then sorrow and regret and, finally, remembrance and gratitude for this singular life. As just a few representative examples, we had a deeply moving memorial service in the U.S. Capitol here as well as in the Hawaii State capitol back in Hawaii attended by many of our colleagues here. This House published a beautiful memorial volume that memorialized the many eulogies given to Mrs. Mink on this floor and a volume for which I want to relay the deep gratitude of the Mink family, husband John, daughter Wendy, brother Eugene. The students at the University of Hawaii Law School Richardson School of Law, on their own initiative, created and funded the Patsy Mink Memorial Fellowship for the purpose of providing an internship here in the U.S. Congress each year to a person in Mrs. Mink's liking. I am very proud to say the first Mink fellow, Van Luong, joined my office last week, and she reminds me a lot of Mrs. Mink. There also were and continue to be a multitude of testimonials on her lasting legislative accomplishments, and I want to leave to the colleagues that come after me to document those one more time because they know better than I do what she accomplished here. But maybe what struck me the most, when I went out to campaign to take over the representation that she had so well provided to the Second Congressional District in what is still to this day referred to as Patsy Mink's seat, the testimonies from the ordinary people, the people that she touched during her life, the people that she represented, like the longtime friend in Lihue who was sick and who Patsy visited in the hospital just 2 days before she went into the hospital herself; like the taro farmers in Kipahulu on Maui, they wanted to show her their lo'i, and the only way for her to do that was to put on boots and walk out there in a very remote part of our district, and she did that. And the pig hunter in Waimen on the Big Island; he had an issue, and the only way to show her what that issue was was to take her into the forest where he lived. She went. These testimonials are the testimonies that really count, but they can really only give testament to the fact that her remembrances are her best legacy. But it is entirely appropriate that we honor her with a more tangible reminder that will serve as a constant physical remembrance of her and cause us to reflect on what she stood for. So as I talked about this with John Mink after my election, he relayed his wish, later endorsed by others such as the Maui County Council, that the U.S. Post Office at Paia be renamed the Patsy Takemoto Mink Post Office. I want to tell Members about Paia very briefly. Paia is on the north shore of Maui on the slopes of Haleakala. Near Paia, only about a mile away, is a town called Hamakuapoko. It used to be a thriving plantation village. It is not quite that anymore, a time when sugar and pine were prevalent, and this is where Patsy Takemoto Mink was born in 1927 and was raised in all of the good and not so good of Hawaii in the 1930s and the 1940s, the community where the old Maui High School is located where Mrs. Mink's political career began when she ran successfully for student body president, the first woman to accomplish that position, the first of many firsts along those lines. In short, this is where she came from, where her values were forged, where her spirit was lit, and it represents the people's traditions and beliefs that she never forgot. This is a fitting memorial for Patsy Takemoto Mink, and I urge my colleagues' full support, and I thank them for further consideration of a great Hawaiian and a great American.

Mr. CASE

Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I am most pleased to introduce the Native American Languages Act Amendments of 2003, with Representatives Neil Abercrombie and Don Young as original cosponsors. This vital legislation will authorize the Secretary of Education to provide grants to or enter into contracts with Native American language educational organizations, Native American language colleges, Indian tribal governments, organizations that demonstrate the potential to become Native American language educational organizations, or consortia of such entities, to establish Native American language ``nests'' for students under the age of 7 and their families. It will also authorize grants for these entities to operate, expand, and increase the number of Native American language survival schools throughout the country for Native American children and Native American language-speaking children. Finally, the bill will authorize the establishment of three demonstration projects that will provide assistance to Native American language survival schools and Native American language nests. Today's measure is a companion to S. 575, which was introduced by the senior member of Hawaii's delegation, Senator Daniel Inouye, and is cosponsored by Senators Daniel Akaka, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, and Tom Daschle. A hearing was held by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee on May 15, 2003, at which there was broad-based support from native language speakers, educators, and supporters from across the country, including Hawaii, Alaska, California, New Mexico, Montana, Oklahoma, Minnesota, and Virginia. This proposal forwards current federal self-determination policies toward native peoples, which support the promotion of economic and social self-sufficiency, as well as the preservation and revitalization of native culture, languages, art, history, religion, and values. Since language is a significant factor in the perpetuation of native cultures, the federal government enacted the Native American Languages Act of 1990 urging federal support for Native American languages, and the Native American Languages Act Amendments of 1992 establishing a grant program at the Administration for Native Americans to fund the preservation of Native American languages. My bill continues this commitment by our federal government to ensure the survival of these unique cultures and languages. In my home state, I am proud that the people of Hawaii and the State of Hawaii have strongly supported the revitalization of Hawaiian culture, art, and language. In 1978, for example, the State of Hawaii wrote into its constitution a specific declaration that Hawaiian is one of our two official languages, along with English. There is also support for Hawaiian language programs in both our public and private schools. At the forefront of these efforts have been supporters of Aha Punana Leo, a Hawaiian language immersion program which has endeavored to include both students and parents in an exciting and innovative way to revitalize Hawaiian language and culture. Ms. Namaka Rawlins, Director of Aha Punana Leo, and her husband, Dr. William (Pila) Wilson, have been pivotal in these efforts. The lessons of family and community involvement in the preservation of the Hawaiian language that they and other have proven are and can be used by other native communities and cultures across the country. While the Aha Punana Leo program initially started with pre-school students, Hawaiian language survival schools were also established to allow for students to graduate from high school. Over 2,000 students are currently enrolled in Hawaiian language nests and survival schools. A Hawaiian language center--Hale Kuamoo--was eventually established at the University of Hawaii at Hilo with the collaboration of Aha Punana Leo as well as a Native College--Ka Haka Ula O Keelikolani College. Both programs have been crucial in providing training to teachers in Hawaiian language, college courses in Hawaiian, and graduate education in Hawaiian language and culture. The revitalization of the Hawaiian language in my state has been instrumental in the preservation of Hawaiian culture, which is important to all of us who call Hawaii home. Today's legislation will take this lesson nationwide in continuing the commitment made by the federal government in 1990 and the progress that has been made since that time to preserve Native American languages, including the Hawaiian language.

Mr. CASE

Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, as our troops come home from Iraq and we look forward to D-Day's 60th anniversary, we all feel a deep and renewed sense of gratitude for our Nation's veterans. And as increasing numbers, like members of my own Hawaii's famed 100th Battalion and 442nd Regimental Combat Team, pass on, we must also remember that one of our basic promises to them is to be buried with their comrades in our great national cemeteries, from Arlington to my own National Cemetery of the Pacific. But increasing numbers of States, 17 at last count, have no Federal VA cemetery, or else those cemeteries are now full. These States must pick up an increasing burden, which is and should be the Federal Government's, and the reality is that, for these veterans, their final resting places are suffering. Today I introduced a simple bill to raise the Federal reimbursement for veteran burials in State cemeteries where there is no Federal VA option from $300 to $750. This is only fair, and I ask for my colleagues' support.

Mr. CASE

Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill to permit reasonable cost reimbursements for emergency room services provided by Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs). We are all well aware of the important role FQHCs play in our medically underserved communities. FQHCs exist in areas where economic, geographic, or cultural barriers limit access to primary health care, and they tailor their services to community needs. There are some FQHCs that go above and beyond the usual scope of services by not only providing primary and preventive care, but also meeting the emergency care needs in their communities. For these services, FQHCs are not currently eligible for reimbursement; they should be. A great example is the Waianae Coast Comprehensive Health Center (WCCHC) in an underserved area of Oahu in Hawaii. The WCCHC is a community-owned and operated non-profit medical facility that serves an ever-growing population of approximately 50,000 residents. Around seventy percent of the WCCHC's patients live on incomes below the national poverty level. About seventy-five percent of all WCCHC patients do not have health insurance. Nearly fifty percent of the WCCHC's patients are of Native Hawaiian ancestry. The WCCHC--which has been recognized for service excellence both locally and nationally--runs the only emergency medical facility on the Waianae Coast. The nearest alternative site for emergency medical care is twenty miles away. I am sure you will agree that this is quite a lengthy journey to make in a critical situation where every second matters. The WCCHC emergency room provides patients with the care they need close to home, in a facility with which they are familiar, and with a staff that both patients and families know and trust. In 1999 alone, the WCCHC emergency staff handled more than 12,000 cases. FQHCs like the Waianae Coast Comprehensive Health Center that provide these vital services should be able to receive reasonable reimbursements for the emergency care of their patients. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. CASE

Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, our Federal budget and taxes are heavy on all of our minds tonight, but I stand today in defense of that most basic expression of our fundamental freedoms, our Bill of Rights, and I rise in doing so with incredible pride in my State of Hawaii, which does not just talk about the Bill of Rights, we live it. For generations now we have understood, not just in our heads but in our hearts, in our bones, the very essence of the Bill of Rights, which is that it protects minorities against the will of the majority. We have understood it not just because it was handed down to us from the cultural heritage of our indigenous peoples, the native Hawaiians, but because in Hawaii we are all minorities. Ethnically, no race is a majority. My own Caucasian race, no more than 25 percent. Americans of Asian descent, no more than 40 percent. Native Hawaiians, little over 10 percent. None of us is in the majority. We have to take care of each other, and similarly with the religions we have in Hawaii. Our predominant Christian tradition in the rest of our country, no more than a third of the people in Hawaii, perhaps another third practicing religions that come primarily from Asia, Buddhist, Shinto, Hindu, and the rest of them an assortment of religions. So in my Hawaii tolerance of diversity is not a matter just of civility. It is a matter of basic necessity. In this tradition I am especially proud that my Hawaii State legislature has become the first legislative body in our country to officially call upon this Congress to alter those portions of the so- called PATRIOT Act and related Bush administration executive orders which run counter to this foundation rock of our democracy and rather than summarize what my legislature did, let me just read Senate Concurrent Resolution 18 passed just a few days ago by overwhelming majorities and reaffirming our commitment in Hawaii to civil liberties in the Bill of Rights. ``Whereas, the Hawaii State legislature is committed to upholding the United States Constitution and its Bill of Rights, and the Hawaii State Constitution and our Bill of Rights; and ``Whereas, the State of Hawaii has a distinguished history of safeguarding the freedoms of its residents; and ``Whereas, the State of Hawaii is comprised of a diverse and multi- ethnic population, and has experienced firsthand the value of immigration to the American way of life; and ``Whereas, the residents of Hawaii during World War II experienced firsthand the dangers of unbalanced pursuit of security without appropriate checks and balances for the protection of basic liberties; and ``Whereas, the recent adoption of the U.S. PATRIOT Act and several executive orders may unconstitutionally authorize the Federal Government to infringe upon fundamental liberties in violation of due process, the right to privacy, the right to counsel, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and basic first amendment freedoms, all of which are guaranteed by the Constitutions of Hawaii and the United States; and ``Whereas, the citizens of Hawaii are concerned that the actions of the Attorney General of the United States and the United States Justice Department pose significant threats to Constitutional protections; now, therefore, ``BE IT RESOLVED by the Senate'' and House of the State of Hawaii ``that the State of Hawaii urges its Congressional delegation to work to repeal any sections of the USA PATRIOT Act or recent executive orders that limit or violate fundamental rights and liberties protected by the Constitutions of Hawaii and the United States; and ``BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that to the extent legally possible, no State resources, including law enforcement funds and educational administrative resources, may be used for unconstitutional activities, including but not limited to the following under the USA PATRIOT Act: ``Monitoring political and religious gatherings exercising their first amendment rights; ``Obtaining library records, bookstore records and website activities without proper authorization and without notification; ``Issuing subpoenas through the United States Attorney's Office without a court's approval or knowledge; ``Requesting nonconsensual releases of student and faculty records from public schools and institutions of higher learning; and ``Eavesdropping on confidential communications between lawyers and their clients. ``Be it further resolved that this resolution be forwarded to this U.S. Congress.'' Mr. Speaker, powerful words from my State legislature, and I have heard it said that those who oppose any provision of the PATRIOT Act are not patriotic. For my State and myself personally, I categorically reject that view. We in Hawaii give nothing away to any other part of our great country and our patriotism. We are proud of our country and our place in it. We are proud of the military service of our own sons and daughters in defense of this country, and we are proud that we in Hawaii are the center of our Nation's defense efforts in half of our world stretching from the mainland United States to the coasts of Africa. To quote my State legislature in passing this resolution, our United States can be both safe and free. We must revisit the PATRIOT Act and accomplish the basic protection of our Bill of Rights.

Mr. CASE

Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), for the accommodation. Perhaps after he hears the remarks, he may regret that; but as a consolation I will say to him that I share his passion for surfing and would be happy to show him a few waves in Hawaii, if that is agreeable. We need to focus, as we have for some time, on what is clearly our number one national challenge, revitalizing our economy and balancing our Federal budget. I want to make two points and emphasize them up front. First, I am happy that we all seem now finally to agree that it is all about the economy. There was some doubt in my mind, given the few months that I have been in Congress, but now there is no question about it. There is also no question that the tragedy of September 11 and Operation Iraqi Freedom necessitated our full focus, our full energy on national security. But before, during, and after those events, it was and is and will be about a stagnating economy and a deteriorating budget. Now, this is an issue not only, as we all know, of jobs, of being able to care for our children, for our parents, for our communities, and of adequate resources for our government to do what it must do for all of us. It is also, and this link is true, it is also about our basic ability to afford our national defense. Because as we focus on national security, as we ask ourselves, what do we need to assure our national security, we have to recall the painful lesson that the USSR learned, which is that defense spending resting on an insufficient economic foundation will get us every time in the end. It is all the same ball of wax. Second, the point I want to make is it is not just the economy, it is the economy/the Federal budget. They are two halves of the same apple. To say otherwise, to pretend that somehow we can talk about the economy and about our remedies for the economy without asking ourselves, what is the impact on our Federal budget, just as it is ridiculous to talk about the Federal budget without asking ourselves, what is the impact back on the economy, is like saying in our family budget, I can take one of the three legs to any family's budget, how much money is coming in, how much money is going out, and how much debt am I carrying, take it and toss it out the window. We cannot do it; we are talking about the same thing. Up to this point perhaps most of us are starting to agree, but after that I do not know. I am getting conflicting reports by this administration about the state of the economy. Sometimes my President seems to be saying, everything is fine. Don't worry, it will take care of it itself. Nothing bad has happened on my watch. If that is the case, why are we granting a massive, massive second tax cut in 2 years? Because, frankly, if our economy is doing just fine, I think we should use those revenues for other purposes. I think we should use those revenues to retire rapidly increasing national debt. Perhaps we should use those revenues to talk about many of the aspects that many of our communities are having problems with, whether they be national security, homeland security, prescription drug benefits. We do not need a tax cut if the economy is doing just fine. Other times, the President seems to say, yes, the economy is in trouble and we need this massive tax cut to fix a failing economy. I can accept that, because at least at that point we are focusing on the issue. Not whether our economy needs help, but how to do it. The point here is, we all need to get on the same page so we can debate how to fix the economy. I think that is it. My page is, and I think most of our country believes that the page is, that we do have a problem. Do not take my word for it. Just take a look at the stats: almost 3 million jobs lost in the last couple of years, and Federal revenues falling well short of projections. That is a problem. A deficit closing in on $400 billion annually, that is a problem. Critical State and local government revenue shortfalls because of poor State and local economies, that is a problem. A single-year increase in our national debt ceiling of about $1 billion, or $1 trillion, excuse me. When I came up here from Hawaii, I had to add a few zeroes, and it still messes me up. One trillion dollars, that is a lot of zeroes. That is a big problem, too. So let us stop talking about whether our economy and our Federal budget need help. We all know they do. In this building, sometimes I am not sure. But I think when we go out into our communities, we all know that is what is on people's minds. If we do not know it, the people we represent do know it. The sooner we get to that problem, the sooner we say, it is our economy, it is our budget, and how exactly do we fix it, the better. Maybe we are closing in on that, but I am not so sure. I can tell the Members one thing, if we are going to talk about a huge tax cut, we have to get there pretty fast. We have to ask ourselves whether economic revitalization will result from a general, massive tax cut focused on the very upper-income levels or targeted to business. We have to ask ourselves whether that much deficit, that much debt, is good and whether it will hurt us over the long run. That is the debate. Let us get to it real fast, and let us focus like a laser beam on the issue: fixing our economy and balancing our Federal budget.

Mr. CASE

Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 204, which congratulates and encourages the charter school movement throughout our country in its continued efforts to educate our children and serve our communities. Charter schools are a modern-day public education story. This is because they foster the key ingredient in successful schools: the active participation not only of teachers and students, but of whole communities. When the entire community--from parents, to business and community organizations, to whole neighborhoods--has a critical role in making schools function, the results are amazing. In my state of Hawai`i, charter schools have been the most exciting development in public education in decades. The 25 charter schools currently allowed by state law have succeeded despite institutional opposition in bringing into education whole communities, often those whose participation has been lacking. They, like their counterparts across the nation, deserve our recognition. But for these very reasons, they also deserve their fair share of resources from federal and state governments. I have a particular charter school in my district that illustrates this point perfectly. Kanu o ka` Aina New Century Public Charter School (KANU) is located in the town of Kamuela on my home Island of Hawai`i. It has 150 students, 85 percent of which are Native Hawaiian. It is Hawai`i's first indigenous K-12 public charter schools. The level of commitment to this school from the community is awe-inspiring. But it also faces major challenges. The school's director says that KANU's biggest challenge is funding equity and school construction funds. For the fiscal years 2001-2002 school year, KANU received $3,492.87 less per student than other public schools. Because KANU has to make due with fewer funds, it cannot save money on the side for construction of new buildings to accommodate its growing population. KANU needs both federal and state resources for construction funding, but it is finding these resources scarce and, when found, hard to access. KANU and Hawai`i's other charter schools, both existing and future, need their federal government to be clear and unequivocal in its continued support for the concept of charter schools. They also need full parity in funding between traditional public schools and charter schools. H. Res. 204 is welcome and needed, but these great words must be partnered with action.

Mr. CASE

Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Texas, our respected majority leader, for his remarks this morning. I think I and all of us owe him a happy birthday wherever he may be and we wish him a happy birthday on, I believe it is his 56th birthday. Unfortunately, there my commendations have to end for the morning because as the war in Iraq comes to its inevitable close and our focus turns back to our domestic issues, our domestic challenges and as they turn back to the number one challenge that we face domestically, which is our Federal budget and fixing our economy, which is an area that the majority leader did not cover, I must say to my colleagues and my constituents back home and my fellow citizens that when it comes to the Federal budget that has been proposed by our President and embraced by our Republican colleagues and as it comes to that budget that we will see later on the floor this week, I must say I am tempted to feel relieved, and I am tempted to feel relieved, because for too long I have been worrying about the little things like our economy and jobs and money and debt and education and health care. At my State legislature like many of us in the State legislatures, I just spent a decade worrying about whether we had enough jobs, whether our taxes were fair, whether we were borrowing too much or whether we were spending too much, whether our kids were getting a good head start, whether our seniors had the basics, what my Hawaii would be like not next year but in 10, 20 years and what I could do to hand it off well. And at home, of course, because government is no different than a household in principle, my wife and I, we have long worried about our jobs and whether we could keep up with expenses, whether our debts were too high, whether our kids would grow up healthy, whether we could get a good, affordable education, whether our parents could live with decency. I am tempted to feel relieved because after all those years of worry both in my State legislature and at home, my Republican colleagues in the White House and here in the Congress have given me and are about to again give me a budget to vote on that says basically, do not worry, your fears are for naught. You can have your cake and eat it, too. You can do whatever you want. It will all work out. Do not worry, be happy. For example, let us take debt. My wife and I, we have been worrying about how much we owe. We do not like debt and when we have to incur debt we do not like it to get too high. We worry about retiring in debt. We worry about whether our kids are going to have to bail us out. We do not think that that is good for us and it is certainly not good for them. In the State legislature back in Hawaii, I worried for a long time about how much my State was borrowing, about whether our hard- earned dollars were going just to pay off debt, whether we were handing off Hawaii in better shape to our children than the Hawaii that we had been responsible for administering. But now I am tempted to feel relieved, because I am told my Federal Government is somehow different, I am told debt is good, do not worry about it, that the largest debt run-up since President Reagan's era is no problem. And Alan Greenspan, somebody that says debt is not bad, chronic debt is bad. Chronic debt does not work. It leads to a worsening economy. It leads to interest rate increases. I am told about Mr. Greenspan, he is all wet, do not worry about him. Let us take taxes. In my State House, I embraced some tax relief in the 1990s, but I worried about whether that tax relief was going to those most in need, whether that tax relief was going to result in economic revitalization. I worried about the connection between lower taxes and an increased economy. Would cuts fix our economy? But here I am told, do not worry. We cannot give you any evidence of a connection between the tax cuts that we recommend and economic revitalization. And we do not have to worry about the Congressional Budget Office saying there is no connection. Do not worry, it will all work out. Let us take expenses, especially unknown or uncertain expenses. My wife and I worry about expenses that we know about and those that we do not yet know about. We worry about college. We worry about setting money aside. We worry about a little bit of a rainy day fund to worry about things that do not come along. But now I am told from this budget, do not worry, we do not need a little rainy day fund. We already have one. It is called Social Security. We can bail it out if we need to and we do not even have to include known expenses, expenses that we may not know how much they will be exactly but we sure know that they are coming. We all know, for example, that $75 billion is just the first installment of our obligations overseas for the war with Iraq. Yet that is not factored into this budget. Why not? I do not know. I guess I am being told, do not worry about it, it will come later. And do not worry about that. Do not worry about the long-term. We can get through the next couple of years. We can get through the things that are coming at us down the road. Do not worry about the projections of an increasing deficit, a deficit projected to increase by some estimates from 300 to $400 billion up to close to a trillion dollars, given the full impact of this tax cut. Do not worry about that. So I am a happy camper today. I do not have to worry. And if I were not so worried, I would be awfully scared.

Mr. CASE

Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I want to join in the remarks of my colleague from New York in thanking both my ranking minority member and my chair on the Committee on Small Business, a committee that I am very proud and happy to serve on, for their great bipartisan efforts. I also again thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) for allowing me to cosponsor what I think is a very important bill for small businesses in our country. I do not think we have to recite at any great length that small business is in fact the engine of our economy. This is especially true in Hawaii where small businesses represent 97 percent of all businesses. And it is not just small business as a category carried by the Federal Government, we are talking about the grassroots of small business in Hawaii. We are talking about businesses where 34 percent have annual sales, gross revenues of under $250,000, where well over 85 percent of all businesses have 10 or fewer full-time employees, and 69 percent 5 or fewer full-time employees. When we ask those small businesses what are the challenges they face, no different from anywhere else in our country, they will say that their challenges are taxes and regulations. Now, we can deal with taxes some other place in some other debate, but today we are dealing with regulations. And for a small business, and those of us that have been in small business know this, government regulation means time and it means attorneys. And time and attorneys means money. And money for a small business on a thin margin means the difference between survival and failure. And to take it a step further, that in turn means the difference between government revenues coming about or not. So it is in all of our interests to deal with the regulatory situation, and this bill does that. Let me give my colleagues a hard core example from my own home State. My big island, my home island, the big Island of Hawaii. There is a region of the Island of Hawaii known as Hamakua. And there is a town in Hamakua known as Honokaa. And Hamakua, as I was growing up on that island, was a sugar community. And Honokaa was a sugar town. And in the last 10 or 15 years, sugar has faded away. As I walk down the streets of Honokaa today, there is a revival; but it is a revival of small business, not of a large scale industry. As I walk down that street, that street is full of small businesses trying to survive and prosper. They are bringing about a revival of a rural economy in an area that needs to retain its employment. Now, what concerns them? Taxes and regulation. They do not have great access to explanations of what is and is not the proper Federal Government regulation. They hardly have access to the Federal Register. They do not have too many attorneys in town, even if they could afford to pay them. But they do have a small business development center a few miles away in the town of Hilo. If they can go to that small business development center for free confidential advice on what Federal regulations are, that will make a world of difference to those small businesses, and that town will survive and that region will survive and prosper, and my island will survive and prosper, as will my State and country. So we can easily see the benefit of this legislation as we go forward. And the benefit of this legislation, again, is to state that basically where our Federal Government does implement and impose regulation on the small businesses of our country, I believe and this legislation says that we also inherit a duty on the part of the Federal Government to ensure that the people that are subject to those regulations understand them and are able to comply with them. These are small businesses that want to comply, but the challenge is to comply fully and with the minimum expenditure of money so that that money can be put into investing in that company and producing tax revenues for all of us. So this is a good bill. This is a bipartisan bill. This is an example of what we can do together. And again I commend the chair and the ranking minority member of the committee that I am proud to serve on, as well as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), and pledge my support to this and urge that it go forward.

Mr. CASE

Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) for his work on this legislation and thank him. I rise in very strong support for this legislation because this bill perfectly melds two objectives that we want to accomplish here in our Congress. The first, of course, is to support small business. We all know and the gentleman has outlined how strong small business can be. It is the backbone of our economy. It is where much of innovation in our country comes from, and it is an area where the need for coordination is great. In my own State of Hawaii almost all of the businesses are small business-related, and they have the same needs as throughout the rest of our country to coordinate those efforts. And this is an area in which the Federal Government's assistance is so well received because of the return on investment, a return on investment of roughly six times the amount invested in these small business development centers, returns to the bottom line in terms of increased tax revenue and employment. The second goal, of course, is the goal of improving the lot of our indigenous peoples, whether they be Native Americans or Native Hawaiians. I think we all know that the route to improving the lot of our indigenous people lies through self-sufficiency. And my own belief, and this legislation makes very clear that the belief of most of us, is that the way to do that is through encouraging economic activity. So to the extent that we can encourage that economic activity, we can take the situation that many of our indigenous people find ourselves in, especially Native Hawaiians in my home State and improve their lot, improve their self-sufficiency, take them off the rolls, whether they be the health care rolls, the welfare rolls. This is the way too for us to go. This is money well spent. Mr. Speaker, I thank and commend the gentleman again for introducing this legislation and I certainly hope we can pass this expeditiously.

Mr. CASE

Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding, and I bid him and my colleagues here in the House a very fond aloha from my home State of Hawaii. As the gentleman has noted, my home State of Hawaii is a State that has a tremendous representation of people of Asian descent. Pacific islanders and Asians make up more than 50 percent of the composition of my State. So in areas of ethnic issues, we are particularly sensitive for both our history and for our modern day; and my State is a State that is very proud of many things, many things about it, from our fantastic environment which so many people have enjoyed, to our native Hawaiian culture which has brought really to the world a spirit of aloha, a spirit of how to live together in harmony with both nature and with each other. But I think the one thing that we are the most proud of in Hawaii and certainly that I am the most proud of in Hawaii, as somebody whose family goes back for four generations there, is our multiethnic tradition. We are again easily the most diverse ethnic composition of any State in the entire country. No ethnic group of the many that we have in Hawaii has a majority. The highest ethnic group in Hawaii has only about 26, 27 percent; the second highest, 24, 25 percent. So we are very conscious of our relationships with each other from an ethnic perspective, a State where over 50 percent now of all marriages are multiethnic marriages; over 50 percent of all births are multiethnic births, including my own children who carry the blood of eight separate ethnic groups in their own veins and carry it without anybody giving any thought to it whatsoever; and where Americans of Japanese ancestry have long been a very significant minority in our history. So for all of us in Hawaii, all of us, whether we are of Japanese ancestry or Caucasian ancestry or Portuguese ancestry or Chinese ancestry or Korean or some of the more recent immigrant groups such as Marshallese, Laotian, Vietnamese, Thai, when we read of comments by one of my colleagues on the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, the Chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Homeland Security, the very subcommittee that is being called upon to make judgments on behalf of all of us in this country on matters of internal security, how we treat our citizens during a time of war, our reactions range from puzzlement, frankly, in some cases to outrage. And, Mr. Speaker, I must confess I do not really know myself what to make of those comments, because those thoughts expressed are so foreign to my own thinking and to the thinking of those in my State. And as I went back to my district over the district work period and talked to my constituents, they brought up these comments. It was not really always a matter of outrage, although some were outraged. It was more a matter of puzzlement. What was it that was occurring? What was it that this colleague was thinking? What exactly was it? Was it just a slip of the tongue? We all make slips of the tongue, and we all are willing to forgive a slip of the tongue. Was it ignorance of the facts, or was it a reflection of more deliberate thinking? And unfortunately we do not know which one it is because, to this day, there has been no good explanation offered. Personally I am willing to accept, and I think most of the people in my State and perhaps in the country are willing to accept, that it was ignorance; willing to accept, as my State legislature right now is resolving, that what is needed here is not any kind of accusations, not any kind of harsh words. What is really needed is education and sensitization to the fact, and that while we need to get beyond this specific incident, nonetheless it again tells us that we must remember that sometimes well-intentioned people can act inexcusably, out of simple ignorance, and that by constant remembrance we can avoid repeats. So I want to remember today what happened in my own State during the time of the Second World War, during the time when 100-some-odd thousand-plus Americans of Japanese ancestry were rounded up and interned in internment camps on the U.S. mainland. I want to remember what happened in Hawaii because that is a part of this story that is not often told. What happened in a State where 37 percent of the population on December 7, 1941, 37 percent were Americans of Japanese ancestry? What happened in a State which was the very site of the attack that put us into World War II? Again 37 percent, and this was not just an isolated population on the mainland. There were a number of Americans of Japanese ancestry mostly living in the smaller communities, not always but mostly. They were not quite as integrated into the society. In Hawaii it was a full integration. We had lived there. They had lived there for over 100 years. For decades they had been fully integrated into the society. In 1941 many were already serving in our U.S. Armed Forces. They had already been drafted. They were already serving in the famous 100th battalion, which was formed out of draftees prior to World War II, including my own former boss right here in this Chamber, my political mentor, the former U.S. Congressman and U.S. Senator from Hawaii, Spark Matsunaga. They were the vanguard of what became a legend in U.S. military history in the second world war because the 100th battalion and later the 442nd regimental combat team, which later merged, in which 3,000 Americans of Japanese ancestry from Hawaii volunteered, a unit which went on throughout the Second World War to become the most decorated unit for its size in the entire history of the United States military; a number of medals of honor including my colleague, the senior Senator from Hawaii, Daniel K. Inouye; a number of Distinguished Services Crosses, Silver Stars, Bronze Stars, French Croz de Guerres; 649 killed in action, 67 missing, 9,486 Purple Hearts. These were people obviously that were dedicated to their country, and yet on December 8, 1941, 1,500 of them were rounded up, Japanese ancestry Americans living in Hawaii were rounded up and interned in Hawaii on Sand Island and interrogated. Some were released; but some, over half of them, were sent to the mainland and interned for the duration of the war. And not only did it affect them, it affected their families. In many cases they went to the mainland to become interned. Why? They were American citizens. Their families had lived in the United States in Hawaii. They were interned because they were educators, because they were Buddhist priests, because they were business leaders. If they were in positions of leadership in the Japanese community in Hawaii, they were suspect just because of that. And there was more than one case in which a son would serve his country in World War II on Anzio and other locations up and down Italy and France while his own father was interned in an internment camp in the United States. Imagine a son, imagine the dedication to a country of a son going into battle when his own father was interned. Yes, it was not as serious as the mainland Americans of Japanese ancestry. And there were heroes in this story, and one of the heroes was the FBI agent in charge in Hawaii during this period, a gentleman by the name of Robert Shivers. It is a little known fact that Robert Shivers arrived in Hawaii in 1939, probably, we would suspect, with perhaps the same sentiments as others that had come from the mainland to a strange place where Americans of Japanese ancestry were 38 percent of the population, at a time when the United States knew it was going to war with Japan and all Americans of Japanese ancestry really were suspect in some people's eyes, and yet only 1,500 were rounded up. Why was that? Because Agent Shivers spent 2 years trying to understand the community, because he went out into the community. He said that after conferring with people in Hawaii, citizens that had lived in this multiethnic society, he said this: ``It was not until I conferred with you that I began to understand the complex racial conditions in Hawaii. You gave me a group of loyal citizens of Japanese ancestry who proved invaluable in helping me shape my course.'' And it is obvious to all of us now in retrospect, after the action of this Congress in issuing an apology and in the actions to evaluate the work of our government during the Second World War in cases such as Koramatsu, it is obvious that had Agent Shivers not been the person that he was, no doubt Americans of Japanese ancestry in Hawaii would have met the same basic conditions as occurred to their colleagues and their family members on the mainland. So, Mr. Speaker, I give these words. I give these words because again I say that what we can all take out of the occurrence of the remarks by our colleague is not to drag him over the coals. I think we are way beyond that. That is not what this is about. This is simply an opportunity again for us to remember, all of us to remember, that good people can sometimes have thoughts that are just not right, and it is simply a matter of not knowing. So we can look to history in this case. We can look to the history of the Americans of Japanese ancestry. They were not unique. The same thing happened to Americans of German ancestry, Americans of Italian ancestry. And we can say to ourselves that there is absolutely no reason in the whole world why the same thing could not happen again under similar circumstances to ethnic groups in our country other than those three. So as we consider this resolution which I have been very proud to co- sponsor, as we consider the motivation behind the resolution, and I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) for introducing this resolution, let us consider again that this is a time simply for us to all pause, let us take a deep breath, and let us just remember what happened and think to ourselves is there any reason whatsoever to assume that without constant vigilance, constant caution, and constant remembrance could it not happen again? That is the lesson for us to carry outside of this unfortunate occurrence, and that is the lesson that my own home State of Hawaii can offer to our country and the rest of the world. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. CASE

Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the courage of the first United States soldiers to scale the summit of the heavily-defended Mt. Suribachi on Iwo Jima. Iwo Jima is a small rocky island only two miles wide and four miles long located approximately 650 miles south of Tokyo, Japan. It is a volcanic island, much like the islands in my home state of Hawaii--a place where cool Pacific breezes rush over soft beaches and birds sing songs learned during lonely flights across the wide ocean. For a brief moment in time, the island of Iwo Jima became a central battleground between the Empire of Japan and the Allied Forces during those terrible and dark days of World War II. The Allied Forces were determined to take the island in preparation for a final attack on Japan, and the Japanese were unbendable in their desire to defend Iwo Jima and to prevent foreigners from moving any closer to the main islands of Japan. On February 19, 1945, approximately 70,000 American and other Allied Forces and 22,000 Japanese soldiers locked themselves in a horrific battle that would begin the final phase of the War in the Pacific. Entrenched in a series of interlocking caves, blockhouses, and pillboxes, the Japanese fought with determination to defend their island. Debarking off a naval armada of more than 450 ships, the Allies, led by the United States, brought the full weight of their highly trained and battle tested troops to bear with the determined goal of taking the rocky island no matter what the cost. The battle for Iwo Jima would be one of the fiercest conflicts of the Second World War. Almost 7,000 Americans were killed in action. More than 20,000 Americans were wounded. Of the 22,000 Japanese defenders, only 1,083 survived. On February 23, 1945, the fifth day of the battle, Marines from the 5th Division were ordered to ascend the slopes of Mt. Suribachi, the main peak controlling the island. Four Marine squads worked their way up the mountain and, at 10:30 a.m., 1st Lieutenant Harold Schrier, Platoon Sergeant Ernest Thomas, Sergeant Henry Hansen, Corporal Charles Lindberg, and Private James Michels raised the first American flag on Mt. Suribachi. Today, when our Nation thinks about the brave soldiers of Iwo Jima, we often visualize the commanding bronze statue resting on the banks of the Potomac River. Most Americans do not realize that this memorial actually depicts the second, much larger flag that was raised over Mt. Suribachi, signaling the courage and determination of the United States to almost every soldier on Iwo Jima and to the naval vessels at sea. In my home state of Hawaii, the Iwo Jima United States Memorial Association is working to raise the funds necessary to build a memorial to recognize the American soldiers who raised the first American flag on Mt. Suribachi. I applaud their efforts and hope that every citizen across the nation will support those groups dedicated to recognizing the courage of American soldiers.

Mr. CASE

Mr. CASE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the democratic alternatives to H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act, and in opposition to the underlying bill. I support what is widely referred to as Patsy Mink Memorial TANF Reauthorization substitute introduced offered by Representatives Kucinich, Lee, McGovern, and, Lantos for two principal reasons. First, I owe it to my distinguished predecessor, the late Congresswoman Patsy T. Mink, to vote to support her legacy of work on welfare reform. This substitute is based on H.R. 3113, which was introduced by Congresswoman Mink in the 107th Congress, and reflected her deeply-held belief that education was the key to enabling poor women and children escape poverty. Indeed, improving welfare law in these respects was her major legislative priority during her last term in Congress. Second, I believe that the States should have very broad authority on how to spend their TANF funds, including decisions on whether to provide benefits to legal permanent residents and educational opportunities beyond basic vocational training. The principal bill does exactly the opposite. I am also voting for the Cardin-Kind-Woolsey substitute, which retains the State flexibility contained in current welfare law and provides States with the option of allowing recipients up to 24 months of education, doubling the provision in current law. I am voting against H.R. 4 because it reduces State flexibility provided under the current law and imposes an unfunded mandate on States. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that implementing the expanded work requirements for welfare mothers--up from 30 hours to 40 hours per week--will cost the States $8 to $11 billion to create make- work jobs and to provide for increased child care. I am supportive of reasonable, fair welfare reform that moves people from welfare to work. But I reject Federal mandates that limit the States' flexibility and unnecessarily harm people who are trying to improve their futures and that of their children through education.

Mr. CASE

Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to cosponsor legislation introduced by my friend and colleague from Hawaii, Mr. Abercrombie, which affirms the longstanding, political relationship between the indigenous people of my state and our federal government and extends the time-honored federal policy of self-determination for indigenous peoples under U.S. jurisdiction to Native Hawaiians. The bill provides for federal recognition of Native Hawaiians, establishes an Office for Native Hawaiian Relations in the Department of Interior, and creates a federal interagency group to better coordinate policies and programs that address Native Hawaiians. Most Americans are very familiar with the indigenous peoples of the continental United States and the State of Alaska--American Indians and Alaska Natives. But, because of Hawaii's geographical distance from the U.S. mainland and our unique history with the United States, most overlook the fact that an equally indigenous people of our great country--Native Hawaiians--originated and retains their base in today's Hawaii. U.S. interests in the Hawaiian Islands and contact with Native Hawaiians date back to the late 1700s. Throughout that period, the federal government has maintained a unique relationship with Native Hawaiians--a relationship that was reaffirmed when Hawaii became a territory in 1900 and a state in 1959, and has continued through today. Over those years, more than 160 federal statutes have enacted programs to address the conditions of Native Hawaiians in areas such as Hawaiian homelands, health, education, and economic development. And in Hawaii, efforts by the state and quasi-autonomous entities such as the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and private entities like the Kamehameha Schools have all been devoted to the same ends. In more recent years, the Congress and Executive Branch have undertaken further efforts to improve the conditions and clarify the political status of Native Hawaiians. Most notably, the enactment in 1993 of the Apology Resolution (P.L. 103-150), which received bi- partisan support in the House and Senate and was signed by President Bill Clinton, expressed a national commitment to reconciliation efforts between Native Hawaiians and the federal government. In 2000, the Departments of Interior and Justice issued a reconciliation report which was a culmination of efforts undertaken by the departments in their consultations with Native Hawaiians on a broad range of issues. In complementary efforts, Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush also addressed the needs of Native Hawaiians in the White House Initiative on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, established by executive orders to increase federal opportunities for and improve the quality of life in these communities. Federal recognition legislation was a top priority recommendation of these efforts. Its intent was and remains to confirm that a federal policy of self-determination toward Native Hawaiians is appropriate and should be further memorialized. As a result, federal recognition is Hawaii's singe highest priority in our federal efforts. Not only is it the natural next step in a long process of reconciliation for Native Hawaiians, but it is indispensable and necessary to the continuation of Hawaii as we know it. That Hawaii cannot exist without the survival and prosperity of our indigenous people and culture. Federal recognition is the only practical way to assure the long term viability of the current and future programs and entities which provide for that culture's survival. In both ways, then, we all have a huge stake in federal recognition. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. CASE

Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I humbly rise in support of H. Res. 51. I want to thank the Majority and Minority Leaders for bringing this resolution to the House floor on a completely united basis. Mr. Speaker, what happened on the morning of February 1st was truly a world tragedy. The crew of the space shuttle Columbia, returning from a productive sixteen day scientific mission to the International Space Station, was lost over Texas. My heart goes out to the families of Michael Anderson, David Brown, Kalpana Chawla, Laurel Clark, Rick Husband, William McCool, and Ilan Ramon, the heroic crew now known as the Columbia 7. On Saturday, we were all again reminded of the dangers of space exploration. Many Americans, my self included, vividly remember January 28, 1986, when the space shuttle Challenger was lost a minute and thirteen seconds into its launch. That tragedy, as well as Saturday's, shocked our nation and focused national attention on the space program and the courageous men and women who risk their lives in the name of science and exploration. The heroic crew of the Columbia was composed of seven of our best and brightest men and women, who reflected the diversity of our nation and world and embodied a new spirit of international cooperation. The Columbia tragedy was especially trying and painful for my home state, for one of our heroes met the same fate in the 1986 Challenger tragedy. Lt. Col. Ellison Onizuka was from my home island, the Big Island of Hawaii. Lt. Col. Onizuka was the ultimate local boy made good and the first Japanese-American to fly into space. Like those on the Columbia 7, he was a strong advocate for exploration, education and adventure. He once said, ``From your vantage point, your education and imagination will carry you to places which we won't believe possible . . . Think of the new horizons you can explore.'' He knew the risks, that there was a significant chance that something could go wrong on a space mission. But he was a dreamer, just like all heroes and leaders. In reinforcing his strong support for man's commitment to exploring new boundaries, he said: ``Make your life count . . . and your world will be a better place because you tried . . . Every generation has the obligation to free men's minds for a look at new worlds . . . to look out from a higher plateau than the last generation.'' Ellison's words still ring true today, and his actions embody the spirit of space exploration and scientific experimentation. He certainly would have said, notwithstanding the loss of the Columbia, that we must go on.

Mr. CASE

Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill to authorize expansion of the Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park, located on the Kona Coast of the Island of Hawai`i. This bill would authorize expansion of the park boundaries to allow the National Park Service to purchase a 2.14-acre parcel with an existing building to serve as a park headquarters. The park has been without a permanent headquarters since its establishment in 1978, and is now renting space some distance from the park. Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park was created for the national preservation, protection and interpretation of traditional native Hawaiian activities and culture. This 1,160-acre park is remarkable not only for its cultural and historical attributes, but as an incredibly beautiful, unspoiled natural treasure. The park is the site of an ancient Hawaiian settlement, which encompasses portions of four different ahupua`a, or traditional sea-to-mountain land divisions. Its resources include ancient fishponds, kahua (house site platforms), ki`i pohaku (petroglyphs), a holua (stone slide), and heiau (religious sites). The park is of tremendous significance to the people of Hawai`i, and especially to indigenous Native Hawaiians. The National Park Service is currently renting space for its headquarters at a cost of $150,000 a year. The current headquarters only has parking for three to four visitors at a time, which is woefully inadequate to accommodate the growing number of visitors to the park. Visitors increased from 54,000 in 2001 to 70,000 in 2002. The proposed acquisition has plenty of parking for visitors and park vehicles. And the existing building has more than adequate space for the park's administrative needs and interpretive mission. The already- developed parcel has the additional benefit of being right next to the park; therefore, the fragile resources within the current park boundaries will not be adversely affected. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and to come to my birthplace, the Big Island of Hawai`i, to visit this magnificent national treasure. Aloha!

Mr. CASE

Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise today in support of S. 23, a bill to extend unemployment benefits for thousands of Americans. Every day, too many American workers are exhausting their unemployment benefits and must use their retirement savings or make other sacrifices just to cover basic living expenses. More than 800,000 people have already exhausted their 13 weeks of extended unemployment insurance benefits that were provided in the economic stimulus legislation enacted in March, which means they have no federal assistance as they search for new jobs. In my home State of Hawaii, over 23,540 workers are currently unemployed, and 3,100 workers who have exhausted their extended unemployment benefits in 2002 remain unemployed. Over 1,800 workers in Hawaii could lose their benefits because the State of Hawaii must cut off extended unemployment benefits unless we continue the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation (TEUC) program. I am pleased that the 108th Congress is passing legislation to retroactively extend unemployment compensation to laid-off workers who have exhausted their normal benefits. Congress has an obligation to make sure individuals who believed they would receive 13 weeks of extended benefits are not arbitrarily denied these benefits because the TEUC program expired on December 28. When I was elected by the people of Hawaii, I quickly committed myself to helping working family struggling to survive this recession. I decided to join with my Democratic colleagues to introduce legislation to extend unemployment benefits for those who were going to lose their benefits because Congress failed to extend the TEUC program. I wish the House could pass the Democratic proposal because it would give every worker 26 weeks of extended unemployment benefits, up from 13 weeks under the current program. During the last recession in the early 1990s, Congress provided 26 weeks of extended benefits, and struggling families need this type of temporary assistance once again. The Democratic proposal would help the 1 million American workers who have already exhausted their extended unemployment benefits. Nevertheless, I reluctantly support S. 23. Unemployed American workers need our help. We must immediately pass this legislation and then develop a comprehensive economic program to help unemployed workers and stimulate our struggling economy.