Ed Case

Mr. CASE

Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, to my colleague, I am simply reading the language of the amendment, ``on a regular and recurring basis.'' There may well be suitable reasons why telework would be advisable on a regular and recurring basis which is not health related and not very specifically narrow as she has pointed out. We have belabored this point long enough. I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, I am reading the text of this amendment, and it says here none of the funds appropriated may be used for the purposes of teleworking or remote working for any employee or any contractor of the Department of Defense on a regular and recurring basis. That seems pretty excessive to me. Now, I would agree with my colleague from Wyoming that certainly telework presents opportunities in some cases for abuse just as regular work does, but we are living in a new world. We are living in a post- COVID world. There is a place in our workforce for regular work, which is not so regular anymore, and there is a place in our world for telework. I can certainly envision legitimate purposes for an employee or a contractor of the Department of Defense to engage in telework; for example, particularly, a valuable contractor who does, in fact, choose to work at home and that contractor's services are desired by the Department of Defense. Why should we limit the Department of Defense in its ability to utilize telework if and as appropriate? By the way, it may be not only about the efficiency of the work, but it may be more cost effective. It may be more cost effective for that work to be engaged in from the telework perspective. We have the technology to do that. There are a lot of ways that we can provide for work. We are obviously in a significant recruiting and retention challenge for the Department of Defense, and if the Department of Defense wants to engage in telework or offer that as an alternative to satisfy its own needs, I see no reason to provide an excessive amendment that essentially rules out an entire option that is available really to the rest of our society. Madam Chair, for those reasons, I must oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, to my friend and colleague, Mr. Calvert, Main Street small business is engaging in telework today. It is finding the opportunities to utilize telework where appropriate. Main Street government is engaging in telework where appropriate. I completely agree with the concerns for telework in a national security environment. Presumably, if one was exercising flexibility from a responsible perspective, one would not engage in telework, especially in the national security area. Obviously, we have a great part of our Federal Government that does not engage in national security directly. Why shouldn't the Department of Defense have this particular flexibility? Again, the excessiveness of the amendment and the no exceptions at all nature of the amendment, I think, advise against it. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASE. Madam Chair, suitable oversight of telework by the DOD is appropriate. It is something that we should engage in. To foreclose it under all circumstances, I believe, is unwise. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CASE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. CASE. Mr. Chair, I just heard my friend and chair of the subcommittee say something that I completely agree with, which is we need real solutions to immigration and the border crisis, and that is true. This takes a piecemeal approach that is unnecessarily broad and unnecessary in general. To our knowledge, there is no current or planned use of active military bases to support DHS' need for temporary or long-term detention of migrants crossing the southern border. Certainly, if the claims by my colleague from New York are correct, that is worthy of debate. However, the amendment goes much further than that particular point. It says that the military cannot provide any assistance to the Department of Homeland Security to house persons on a military installation. Therefore, we have to ask the question: Is that too broad in an amendment? Let's take a look at a couple of examples or at least one example in particular. It would apply in that case to governmentwide efforts like Operation Allies Welcome, which was the evacuation of Afghan refugees after the collapse of the government in Afghanistan in 2021. The DHS at the time worked with the Departments of Defense and State to use military installations to temporarily house Afghan refugees fleeing imminent danger and persecution. This was a critical tool to save lives. There are, I am sure, other situations that we can envision in which we would want to access our military installations for very tailored purposes, with congressional oversight, that are under the control of the Department of Homeland Security. If we want to have a debate over immigration, let's have it. If we want to recognize that we have a real problem, I am the first to recognize that, as well. The amendment certainly takes a very broad approach to a problem that I think we can all agree is definitely a problem and rules out many other situations that, in all honesty, we would want the discretion for the DOD. It is much better for Congress to retain that discretion to the DOD where necessary for national security purposes with congressional oversight and with very tailored congressional restrictions. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASE. Mr. Chair, first of all, I think we are trying to confirm whether or not Floyd Bennett Field is, in fact, a military installation within the definition of the gentleman's amendment. That point aside, again, I would say that if we are trying to solve the particular issue that my colleague and friend from New York is trying to solve, let's try to solve that one. Let's not do so with a blunt instrument that takes away discretion across the board for legitimate uses of military installations under congressional oversight, such as the Afghan refugee situation. We can talk about this on the floor. Yes, it is completely necessary to discuss and debate this, but let's not overplay this so that the DOD never has the flexibility to have any military installation used for legitimate purposes that we would all agree with. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CASE. Mr. Chair, we have confirmed, to the prior amendment, that Floyd Bennett Field in New York is not a military installation. Do we not value diversity in our military? That is the question in this amendment. Does it matter that we have a diverse military? Does it matter or not? Do we not value equity in our military? Does it matter? Do we not value inclusion? Do we want a military that represents our society or just a slice of it? That is the question. If you say that you value a diverse, equal, and inclusive military, if you say that that is of value to you, it doesn't happen automatically. It takes effort. That is why our military leaders over a long period of time now have valued the investment in diversity, equity, and inclusion. They understand that a military that reflects the society that we live in values our military and accelerates, enhances, and improves the overall service that it provides. They understand that that military in that situation will be supported by the American people. They understand that it will be respected around the world where many other militaries of our partners and allies around the world do value diversity, equity, and inclusion. They don't have these debates in their parliaments and congresses. They don't face these attacks on the attempt to value these attributes within our military. We need to back those up, and yes, that does take an investment. Where you think that those efforts are wrong, where you think they have gone too far, where you think that they are somehow affecting military service, then go ahead and oversee those efforts. Your solution is to cut the funding from all of them because you don't value these attributes in our military. You think that valuing these attributes leads to a weak military. I heard you say that. I don't agree with that. That is fundamentally not a position that we agree with. From our perspective, again, to take a blunt instrument and wipe out an entire department that values efforts that will improve military service, and, by the way, improve military recruitment, I hope the author of the amendment agrees that military recruitment is a major challenge for our military. Yet, let's just say to whole parts of our society, sorry, we don't value you at all because we are not going to take care of trying to provide for diversity, equality, and inclusion. That is the wrong approach. Fundamentally, this is a difference in policy. It is a difference in goal. Apparently, it is a difference in assessment of what makes our military strong and will continue to make it strong. For those reasons, I have to strongly oppose this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASE. Mr. Chair, obviously we have a difference of opinion here. I would also submit that the leadership of our military have a difference of opinion with the perspectives expressed by the author of this amendment. Again, they understand the values of pursuing a diverse, equitable, equal, and inclusive military. They understand the challenges of a military that is not representative of the American people. They understand the need to provide for that investment. Again, we can oversee this particular effort. We can question particular representations of that policy. To take a blunt instrument to this entire effort and defund it and say that it has no value at all, that is what is objectionable in this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CASE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. CASE. Mr. Chair, again, we have an amendment that would want us, apparently, to occupy some other state of reality as opposed to the world as we have it today. In that world, we do have transgender individuals who need help, children whose parents are looking for the right courses of conduct for them. This measure would say that those parents do not have the right to make those decisions in consultation with their doctors and with their children. Further, what this amendment says is that those parents need not apply to join our military because they will not be welcomed there with the decisions that they need to make for their families. This amendment that cuts gender-affirming care options for servicemembers' children will drive individuals out of the military, prevent recruitment to start with, and is, frankly, needlessly cruel. These decisions should be reserved for parents and their children. I hear all the time from the other side of the aisle talk about parents' rights--all the time. Parents should have the right to make these decisions. Is there an exception for military families? Parents get to make these decisions, but by the way, if you are a member of our military, you don't get to make these decisions. This is a very personal decision for parents to make with their families, with their children, and with their doctors. It is probably, in all honesty, unconstitutional as courts believe healthcare bans like this violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution, but let's just leave that aside and talk about the policy. Is the policy wise to say to servicemembers and their families that they cannot access care that is provided to them in a non-servicemember world? I think that is the wrong policy, so I oppose this amendment and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CASE. Mr. Chair, first of all, we can certainly debate the efficient use of our funds for expenses and the cost, but I strongly suspect that my colleague's objections in this amendment do not relate to cost but to a judgment about what should and shouldn't be provided to our military families. Now, we can have this debate about transgender care for our military servicemembers, and the debate will look something like this one, but this particular amendment would ban any care for minor children. What this amendment would do is to say to our military servicemembers, you cannot have the full range of recognized medical options for your children that are available in a nonmilitary setting. That is what this amendment would do. This is about children. It is about parents making decisions for their children. This is a situation where that decision should be left to the servicemember parents who have a choice as to whether they serve in the military or not, have a choice as to whether to join the military or not, or stay in the military. We should provide them the same basic rights and options as are available in the private sector. Otherwise, aside from not being fair to them, in my estimation, we also will not have a strong military because they will choose not to join or to stay in. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CASE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CASE

Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1567, the Accurately Counting Risk Elimination Solutions (ACRES) Act of 2023. Drought conditions and invasive grasses throughout the country in recent years have compounded the threat of wildfires, and the recent wildfires on Maui serve as a tragic reminder of how serious the risks are. These wildfires devastated a vibrant community and serve as a stark warning sign of the reality of such risks. Federal lands are particularly vulnerable to wildfires, as they alone experience a fifth of the country's wildfires every year. To combat this danger, the ACRES Act will help mitigate the risk of wildfires across the country by mandating that our Department of Agriculture and Department of the Interior conduct more accurate risk assessment tracking of dry invasive grasses on our federal lands. This will help prevent wildfires before they start. This legislation will also mandate that data collection processes involved in wildfire risk assessments be updated and standardized across both departments to ensure that their cooperation will be seamless and efficient. Each department will also be required to submit a report of the number of acres of federal lands that underwent a risk assessment every year and provide critical information on wildland-urban interface and wildfire risk. The ACRES Act will add an extra layer of oversight and public transparency to ensure the accuracy of wildfire risk assessments, allowing for more effective wildfire prevention. This legislation will be especially helpful in Hawaii, which has large public land holdings and currently suffers from a higher risk of wildfires due to vast swaths of land being overrun by dry invasive grasses, directly linking to fires across my state every year. This commonsense bill will enable us to reduce hazardous fuels and protect our communities from this threat. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to help advance smart data collection and protect our public lands from wildfire by supporting this bill.

Mr. CASE

Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill to end the exclusionary and discriminatory practices of private shipping services to Hawaii and the other non-contiguous parts of our country. My home state of Hawaii is located almost 2,500 miles off the West Coast. We depend on shipping more than many other locations in our country, importing well over 90 percent of our life necessities, yet people living in Hawaii have encountered 3 unfair shipping practices. First, when ordering essentials online, we often learn that a particular online store or item doesn't even ship to Hawaii at all. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reviewed this issue and confirmed that ``some companies . . . are unwilling to ship products to Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the other territories.'' This exclusion prevents a few million Americans in the non-contiguous states from obtaining key products that should be available to them. Second, as many of my constituents know, those who live in Hawaii are often denied free shipping options from online retailers. It is so painful when a website advertises free shipping and you fill up your shopping cart and input your address only for a red error message to pop up with the news that Hawaii, Alaska, Guam and elsewhere are not included in the free shipping deal. Third, even when companies do ship to Hawaii, the prices bears no reasonable relationship to the distances involved. The cost to ship to and from anywhere in the United States depends on several factors, including the weight and size of your package and service class. However, according to the FTC, private shipping companies' delivery options may cost considerably more for a destination in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and the other U.S. territories than for the contiguous states. For example, a 2-pound package sent from Los Angeles to Hawaii costs $45.33, but the same shipment from Los Angeles to New York is just $14.28. This outrageous price is from a private shipping company that categorizes shipping to Hawaii as an international shipment. It is hard to believe that over 60 years after becoming a state and over 120 years after becoming part of America, Hawaii is still treated as a foreign country. These price discrepancies also bear no relation to the product and are included regardless of the distance between the sender and the recipient. For example, 1 private shipping company charges approximately $150 to ship a small package from Seattle to Juneau in 2 days, whereas the same package would cost approximately $65 to ship a much greater distance from Seattle to Washington, D.C. in 2 days. We--the non-contiguous areas of our country--are bearing the burden of these 3 discriminatory shipping practices. My bill, the Fair Shipping for Non-Contiguous Areas Act, addresses all 3 problems. It would require shippers to support all locations within our country. It would also end the exclusionary and discriminatory pricing practices of private shipping companies to and from my home state of Hawaii and elsewhere--excluding them from free shipping or charging exorbitated rates. In doing so, we will break these shipping companies' stranglehold on exposed communities and address another contributor to the sky-high living costs in Hawaii and other noncontiguous locations. I urge my colleagues to support this bill as a matter of fairness for the people of Hawaii and all other Americans who do not live in the continental United States.

Mr. CASE

Mr. CASE. Mr. Chair, our national parks are among our most universally supported and treasured institutions, and they cannot survive in an atmosphere of incredible popularity. We simply must find accommodations to protect the basic principles and qualities of those parks for which we treasure them so much. One of the areas where we have significant problems is in overuse of our parks by commercial air tour operations, which severely degrade some of our parks and have the risk of degrading all of our parks for a number of different reasons, whether they be environmental, whether they be protection of our natural resources, or whether they be visitor enjoyment. Fundamentally, commercial air tours overflying a national park with noise and other disruption on the ground does degrade the park experience for the many who enjoy them in that way. There is no right to overfly our parks. Now, I concede and agree that there is some reasonable area and use for commercial air tours. I certainly want those that cannot experience our parks to experience them in this way, and I certainly believe that they have a place in our parks, but not where they are today and not where they are going. We recognized this challenge 23 years ago in this Congress by passing a law which essentially required air tour management plans, which accommodated all interests, and those plans are now coming to fruition. This amendment is on the floor because the sponsor and others do not like the results, which accommodate air tour operations in the vast majority of our parks. This process has been a good one, a difficult one, one in which the operators have participated. They will continue to have a place under these plans, a reasoned place. The fact that some of them don't like the outcome does not mean that the process is not a valid process. This process should be continued to its conclusion. It should be accommodated. It should be implemented in a way that is reasonable to all. This amendment destroys that process and would degrade our parks to the detriment of the vast majority of the people who enjoy our parks. Mr. Chair, I urge opposition to the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CASE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CASE

Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my Boosting Long- Term U.S. Engagement in the Pacific (BLUE Pacific) Act, co-introduced with my Pacific Islands Caucus Colleagues Congresswoman Radewagen, Congressman Bera and Congressman Sherman. This bill directs a comprehensive and sustained approach to U.S. engagement in the Pacific Islands, a critical part of the broader Indo- Pacific where much of the future of the world is being charted. The lands and waters of the jurisdictions spread across Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia comprise an area larger than the land areas of China and Russia combined and represent a major portion of the vast Pacific Ocean and our Earth's surface. The peoples of these islands have developed their own proud cultures and identity over millennia, and for centuries now have shared historic, cultural, economic and strategic ties with the United States. Tens of thousands of U.S. and allied servicemembers died throughout the Pacific Islands in World War Two defending the common values shared between our country and the Pacific Islands. Our presents and futures are entwined; they are being and will be determined jointly. Last year's U.S.-Pacific Islands Summit in Washington and the Strategy for Pacific Partnership released at that summit built on prior versions of our BLUE Pacific Act first introduced by our Pacific Islands Caucus in 2019. They represented a confirmation of our shared histories and path and a full re-engagement on all fronts with the Pacific Islands. Our BLUE Pacific Act reintroduced today updates our prior versions to account for portions already enacted through other vehicles as well as the U.S.-Pacific Islands Summit. It supports the tenets of the Pacific Islands Forum's 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent, ensuring that our efforts are fully responsive to and synchronized with the expressed direction and needs of the Pacific Islands nations. It specifically codifies the Strategy for Pacific Partnership and requires updates to the strategy every four years. It also includes language encouraging the allocation of more staff to the Pacific Islands, and the facilitation of U.S. support for trade capacity building, environmental change mitigation, education, civil society engagement and security training. These further initiatives support the significant strides we have made in recent years towards fully reengaging the Pacific Islands region across a range of common values and interests and in response to specific Pacific Islands needs. In this moment, as the Pacific Islands recover from the health and economic impacts of the pandemic and are confronted with increased environmental, security and other challenges, this re-engagement is vital. Our bill says to the Pacific Islands that the United States is a partner they can trust and rely upon over the long term. For these reasons, I ask that my colleagues support our bill. Mahalo (thank you).

Mr. CASE

Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Red Hill Health Impact Act, a crucial piece of legislation to address the health implications of the recent fuel spill at our military's Red Hill Underground Fuel Facility above Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. My bill, which I jointly introduce with my Hawaii colleagues, Senators Brian Schatz and Mazie Hirono and Congresswoman Jill Tokuda, aims to protect the health of individuals affected by that inexcusable incident, particularly those who lived or worked in a residence or other building served by the water system at Joint Base Pearl Harbor- Hickam (JBPHH). Red Hill is unlike any other bulk fuel storage facility in the world. Built during World War II, its twenty underground tanks have the capacity to store up to 250 million gallons of fuel. But it is constructed and was operated at a location immediately above the main aquifer for the City and County of Honolulu that provides water to hundreds of thousands of Hawaii residents, servicemembers and visitors. Although the community has raised concerns about these tanks for many years, in 2021 an estimated 20,000 gallons of fuel leaked from one of the tanks into the aquifer. The contaminated water was then withdrawn from the aquifer and fed into the JBPHH and distributed to thousands of mostly-but-not-exclusively military homes, offices and businesses. Many became ill as a direct result, and many more fear for longer term health impacts not immediately apparent. Though the Secretary of Defense has since ordered the defueling and decommissioning of Red Hill, a process now underway, the Red Hill incident has had a profound impact on the lives not only of the directly affected individuals and families, but the Hawaii community at large. The contamination of Oahu's main water aquifer has raised persistent concerns about the potential long-term health implications to exposed individuals. Our Red Hill Health Impact Act takes essential steps to address these concerns and ensure that impacted individuals receive the support and services they need over time. One of its primary provisions is establishing a registry where concerned individuals can sign up to facilitate outreach and collect comprehensive data on the health implications of exposure to petroleum-contaminated water. This registry will provide invaluable information and allow us to identify additional research needs to better understand the effects of such contamination on our health. The bill further calls for an epidemiological study that will assess potential health implications for impacted individuals over at least twenty years. This study will provide us with critical insights into the long-term health effects of exposure to petroleum-contaminated water and enable us to develop targeted interventions and support systems to mitigate any adverse health outcomes for those affected. To ensure transparency and accountability, the Red Hill Health Impact Act requires annual reports on the study and its findings to be provided to the appropriate Congressional committees, enrolled members and the public. Open communication and access to information are paramount in addressing the concerns and needs of the impacted individuals and the broader community. It is our duty to ensure that those affected by this incident are not left to face their health concerns alone after the immediate crisis passes and Red Hill closes. I therefore urge my colleagues to support the Red Hill Health Impact Act, thus prioritizing the well-being of the impacted individuals and recognizing the lasting impact the Red Hill incident has had and may have on their lives. Mahalo.

Mr. CASE

Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleague, Representative Tokuda, in introducing our bill to protect one of the most unique and fragile environments on Earth, our Hawaii, from devastating invasive species. Invasive species pose an especially grave threat to Hawaii's unique ecosystems, natural resources and agricultural communities, in part due to Hawaii's unique geography. Hawaii is the most isolated island chain and one of the most ecologically diverse places in the world. We are 2,282 miles from the Continental United States, 2,952 miles from Japan and 4,772 miles from Washington, D.C., with no other islands in close proximity. We have within our constrained borders ten of the thirteen world climate zones, with ecosystems ranging from desert to tropical, where plants and animals that found their way to Hawaii evolved like nowhere else. A 2014 survey identified fully 9,975 endemic species in Hawaii. These species include the Hawaiian scarlet honeycreeper, the `i`iwi; the flowering evergreen; and the state mammal of Hawaii, the `ilioholoikauaua (Hawaiian monk seal). However, tragically, in large part due to invasive species, Hawaii has become the endangered species and extinction capital of the world. The Pacific Islands are home to 44 percent of the threatened and endangered species listed under the Endangered Species Act, and Hawaii currently has 468 species listed as endangered, more than any other state and almost half of the total endangered species nationwide. Many of these species are critically endangered and face an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild. Although we will never know the true number of species that have gone extinct in Hawaii, in 2021 alone nine Hawaiian species were declared extinct. As one particularly poignant example, four years ago the Atlantic published an article, ``The Last of Its Kind,'' which chronicled the death of George the snail. He was the last achatinella apexfulva, a species of tree snail that is endemic to the island of O`ahu. This article calls attention to the fact that snails in Hawaii are disappearing at an alarming rate, perhaps faster than any animal on Earth right now, victims of various factors in part linked to invasive species. The threat to our state tree, the `ohi`a lehua, is also illustrative of our growing crisis. Used for poi boards and outrigger canoes, the `ohi`a lehua is important to Hawaiian culture and the islands' watersheds. As the first tree to grow in new Hawaii lava flows, `ohi`a lehua grows throughout the watershed creating new soil, stabilizing steep mountain ridges and comprises approximately 80 percent of Hawaii's native forests. However, rapid `ohi`a death, or ROD, caused by an invasive fungal pathogen, kills `ohi`a trees quickly, and threatens the stability of Hawaii's native forests. Since its discovery on the Big Island in 2014, ROD has spread to Kaua`i, Mau`i and O`ahu, and has killed hundreds of thousands of trees. Hawaii's unique circumstances also have given rise to one of our nation's most diverse and productive agricultural communities. With a year-round growing cycle, our crops have ranged throughout our history from the highest quality sugar and pineapple and cattle to tropical specialty crops like fruit and cut flowers in the highest demand worldwide. Yet it is exactly because these crops like our natural resources have adapted to Hawaii's uniqueness that they are the most susceptible to devastation from external species against which they have no natural defenses. Invasive species have drastically impacted agriculture in Hawaii, threatening some of the island's most valuable crops in the state's third-largest industry. One of Hawaii's most valuable crops, the macadamia nut, remains under threat from the macadamia felted coccid. Macadamia felted coccid has been found in all of Hawaii Island's macadamia growing regions. The felted coccid reduces macadamia tree output by draining nutrients from the tree. The cattle industry, which is one of Hawaii's most important agricultural commodities, has been dramatically affected by the introduction of the invasive two-lined spittlebug. Since being detected in 2016, the pest now infects more than 200,000 acres of grassland and is clearing lands for invasives grasses that further affect Hawaii's ecosystems. Yet despite these incontrovertible and growing impacts of external species on Hawaii's natural resources and economy, existing federal law leaves Hawaii largely defenseless against increasingly destructive invasives. Imports by air and sea, the only means of in-bound transportation to our island state, lack any effective regulation to screen out invasives. This is despite a fairly robust screening of exports from Hawaii to the Continental United States to screen out invasives from Hawaii viewed as harmful to mainland agriculture (invasives that, ironically, were invasives into Hawaii to start with). I sought to crack down on this lax regime to prevent and curb invasives with my introduction of H.R. 3468 in 2005, modeled after New Zealand and other isolated jurisdictions with then like now the most stringent invasive species prevention regimes in the world. Since the introduction of that bill, the threats from invasives have only grown. Since 2005, 195 invasive species have been introduced to Hawaii. That is in addition to the roughly 5,000 invasive species that have been introduced to Hawaii throughout its history. Our bill, the Hawaii Invasive Species Protection Act, will require the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Inspection Service (APHIS), in cooperation with other federal departments and the State of Hawaii, to conduct visual, x-ray and canine inspections, as appropriate, on person, baggage, cargo and any other article destined for direct movement to the State of Hawaii. The inspections will search for high-risk invasive species and agricultural materials. The inspections will be conducted at airports, ports and postal sorting facilities prior to direct travel to the State of Hawaii. Our bill further requires APHIS to work with the State of Hawaii to develop and publish a list of the high-risk invasive species and agricultural materials for the State of Hawaii. It pays for these inspections by increasing Agriculture Quarantine Inspection fees to cover the full cost of inspection. Inaction is not an option. For example, the coffee berry borer, which was discovered in Kona on Hawaii Island in 2010 already infects all of the coffee growing islands in Hawaii. The coffee berry borer can cause yield losses of between 30 and 35 percent and affects the quality of the coffee beans, directly impacting the income of growers. Had this bill been implemented, it may have helped prevent coffee leaf rust from entering Hawaii. The confirmed and continued presence of this fungal disease, which can lead to yield losses of between 50 and 80 percent, on multiple Hawaiian islands could leave one of Hawaii's most iconic industries devastated. If we truly care about the threat that continued and escalating invasive species pose to one of the most invaluable and unique ecosystems on earth, in addition to our unique economy and way of life, then the stark reality is that this bill is what it will take. Again, it is not revolutionary when compared to other countries that have not only recognized this threat but actually done something about it. And it is certainly not revolutionary when compared to longstanding domestic restrictions on exports from Hawaii, leading to the basic point that if these invasive species prevention requirements are good enough for the rest of the country and much of the world then they're good enough for Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the House for its understanding and careful consideration of Hawaii's challenge and opportunity and ask for our bill's expeditious passage. Mahalo.

Mr. CASE

Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Lamba Chi Omega Chapter for its 45 years of dedication and commitment to the State of Hawaii and the Pacific Islands. Founded on the campus of Howard University on January 15, 1908 in Washington, D.C., Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority is the oldest international Greek-letter service organization established by college- educated African American women, with over 300,000 members in over 1,000 chapters worldwide. Forty-five years ago, the women of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Lambda Chi Omega Chapter followed in their founders' footsteps to start a chapter in Hawaii. Coined as the ``First Chapter of the Pacific,'' Lambda Chi Omega established a legacy of leadership, service and community involvement that has significantly impacted the lives of the people of Hawaii. The vision, dedication and leadership of the founding members in establishing a legacy of sisterhood, scholarship and service continues to impact in Hawaii today. The commitment to excellence and service by Lambda Chi Omega Chapter's founders is deeply rooted in the legacy of charter members Annie Briscoe, Sharon Brown, Dale Buffaloe, Bessie Crawford, Ella Edwards, Geraldine Hale, Barbara Hayman, Dorothy Henry, Barbara Jones, Sandi (Lakin) Sumbry, Lorene McLaurin, Georgette Moon, Ada Morgan, Virginia Payton, Lorna Peck, Donna Poindexter, Jane Sayles, Marjorie Singer, Edith Smith and Dannis Thompson. Through their unwavering commitment to education, health, economic empowerment and social justice, the chapter's members have made an important difference in the lives of Hawaii's residents. In addition, their contribution to the community serves as a testament to the power of collective action and the positive impact that can be achieved when people come together for a common cause. Additionally, we must pay tribute to Bettye Jo Harris, one of the chapter's pioneers and long-time community activist who has been a leading figure in the fight for civil rights and equality in Hawaii. Through her tireless work on behalf of all minorities, the underserved and the needy, she has spearheaded civil rights advances in Hawaii, and her contributions are worth commending here in the U.S. House of Representatives. Today, I formally recognize the outstanding service and dedication of the members of the Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Lambda Chi Omega Chapter. Let us all commend them for their tireless efforts and selfless commitment to making a positive impact in the lives of others, and let us all wish them continued success in all their endeavors.

Mr. CASE

Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, can anyone with any halfway working knowledge of government finances seriously dispute that our federal fiscal house is dangerously out of order? Our national debt is approaching $32 trillion, doubling in just the last decade alone, and up some $3 trillion in just the two years since I last introduced my Sustainable Budget Act in February 2021. More directly, our debt-to-gross domestic product (GDP), or the measure of our economy's ability to sustain national debt, now stands at 120 percent, doubling since 2000. The fastest-growing part of our federal budget continues to be interest payments on our debt, increasingly outpacing and crowding out critical defense and non-defense spending alike. In a Congress where we often repeat the platitude that our budget reflects our values, it is disturbing that the main common value reflected is fiscal unsustainability ranging to irresponsibility. We need look no further than a mirror for the root cause: our collective inability to face the music of fiscal responsibility and sustainability. We clearly need help with our collective inability to confront this reality. My Sustainable Budget Act, again co-introduced yesterday with Congressman Steve Womack, is at least a start toward a solution. It would follow the models of Simpson-Bowles and other such independent, bipartisan commissions charged with focusing on our deficits and debt and recommending a sustainable path for an up-or-down vote by Congress. Our bill is similar to other proposals, including the TRUST Act that I have reintroduced with Congressmen Scott Peters and Mike Gallagher to save our foundational entitlement programs from similar unsustainability. Together, they offer a far better way to tackle our debt crisis than denial, anger, avoidance, diversion and rhetoric. I urge their prompt consideration and passage.

Mr. CASE

Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, can anyone with any halfway working knowledge of government finances seriously dispute that our federal fiscal house is dangerously out of order? Our national debt is approaching $32 trillion, doubling in just the last decade alone, and up some $3 trillion in just the 2 years since I last introduced my Sustainable Budget Act in February 2021. More directly, our debt-to-gross domestic product (GDP), or the measure of our economy's ability to sustain national debt, now stands at 120 percent, doubling since 2000. The fastest-growing part of our federal budget continues to be interest payments on our debt, increasingly outpacing and crowding out critical defense and non-defense spending alike. In a Congress where we often repeat the platitude that our budget reflects our values, it is disturbing that the main common value reflected is fiscal unsustainability ranging to irresponsibility. We need look no further than a mirror for the root cause: our collective inability to face the music of fiscal responsibility and sustainability. We clearly need help with our collective inability to confront this reality. My Sustainable Budget Act, again co-introduced yesterday with Congressman Steve Womack, is at least a start toward a solution. It would follow the models of Simpson-Bowlesand other such independent, bipartisan commissions charged with focusing on our deficits and debt and recommending a sustainable path for an up-or-down vote by Congress. Our bill is similar to other proposals, including the TRUST Act that I have reintroduced with Congressmen Scott Peters and Mike Gallagher to save our foundational entitlement programs from similar unsustainability. Together, they offer a far better way to tackle our debt crisis than denial, anger, avoidance, diversion and rhetoric. I urge their prompt consideration and passage.

Mr. CASE

Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, l rise today in support of S.7, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Technical Amendment Act of 2022. This bill will ensure the full inclusion of Native Hawaiians, the indigenous peoples of our country whose origins lie in Hawaii, in the Services, Training, Officers and Prosecutors (STOP) Grants for Tribal Coalitions program under VAWA. Violence against indigenous women has reached crisis levels on tribal lands and in Alaska Native villages. In Hawaii, gender-based violence against Native Hawaiians is also at a breaking point. Much like their American Indian and Alaska Native counterparts elsewhere, Native Hawaiians face substantially higher rates of intimate partner violence, family violence, sexual assault and sex trafficking than any other racial or ethnic group in Hawaii. According to most available data from the Officer of Hawaiian Affairs, 67 to 77 percent of sex trafficking victims in Hawaii are Native Hawaiian women and girls, and 37 percent of reported child sex trafficking cases in Hawaii involve Native Hawaiians. They are also disproportionately represented across the many forms of sexual violence. To address these issues within Native Hawaiian communities, we must develop and implement community-driven, culturally relevant and intergenerational approaches for supporting Native Hawaiian women. Unfortunately, because of a drafting error in the 2013 VAWA reauthorization bill, Native Hawaiian domestic violence victims have been excluded from VAWA STOP Grants, which deliver just such programs, and thus effectively deprived of vital services and support. While tribal coalitions and Native Hawaiian Organizations are eligible for STOP Grant funding, both tribal coalitions and Native Hawaiian Organizations are limited to only serving American Indians and Alaska Natives, not Native Hawaiians. This must be corrected. The VAWA Technical Amendment Act simply adds Native Hawaiians as eligible for VAWA-related services from Native nonprofit grantees. Any Native Hawaiian Organization interested and eligible to provide critical domestic violence and sexual assault services to Native Hawaiian survivors must be given the opportunity to do so. This technical correction will allow this to happen, ensuring that Native Hawaiian Organizations can serve Native Hawaiians in need of these critical services. More work lies ahead for our federal government to address and eliminate the ongoing violence against indigenous women in our country, and I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on these efforts to support all Native survivors of domestic and sexual violence. Mahalo.

Mr. CASE

Mr. CASE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 75th Anniversary of the Hawaii Wing of the Civil Air Patrol (CAP). Founded in 1947, the Hawaii Wing of the CAP works to support the mission of its national organization in my home state. What began as a volunteer organization to mobilize civilian aviation resources for national defense following World War II has evolved into a premier public service organization that carries out emergency service missions when and where needed. The Hawaii Wing of the CAP, as well as the CAP wings in Alaska, Guam and Puerto Rico, only came to be because of the determination of Sarah Park of Hawaii. She was an avid pilot and took her first solo flight at age 16 shortly after the end of World War II. The same year she took her first solo flight, she began working to convince CAP's National Headquarters to change its rules so that Hawaii and the other territories at that time could create their own CAP wings. Due to her persistence, in 1947 the Hawaii Wing began its operations. It initially served as an additional resource for national defense and sought to protect Hawaii by conducting observation flights around the islands. The Wing's first Commander was Lieutenant Colonel Ben Dillingham II, who received a Bronze Star for meritorious service in World War II. Since its inception, the Hawaii Wing has performed critical public safety missions for the State of Hawaii. As early as 1957, the Hawaii Wing became part of the Hawaii Emergency Services Tsunami Warning Program for Kauai Island, and to this day, CAP aircraft are the only state resources for issuing tsunami warnings in places where there are no warning sirens or the sirens are inoperative. Additionally, working both in the air and on the ground, the over 600 members of the Hawaii Wing perform emergency services for the Hawaii Federal Emergency Management Agency and augment search and rescue services throughout the state. A major part of the Wing's community outreach is providing aerospace education to Hawaii's youth and inspiring them to pursue careers in aerospace; aviation; and other science, technology, engineering and mathematics-related fields. The Wing's cadet programs also provide flight experience to students, which can spur lifelong interest in aviation or encourage the pursuit of a career in related fields. Along with these invaluable educational experiences, the Hawaii Wing instills values of leadership and character in their recruits which will help cadets in all aspects of their life and help them give back to their communities. Please join me in extending a mahalo to the Hawaii Wing of the Civil Air Patrol for its service in our skies and in our communities and a hearty congratulations on its 75 years of service to the people of Hawaii.