Mazie Hirono

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Congresswoman Hanabusa's bill to designate the post office in the neighborhood of Kahala in Honolulu as the Cecil L. Heftel Post Office Building. Cec Heftel, as he was known to everyone in Hawaii, is remembered for his keen business sense, his pursuit of excellence as a broadcaster, and his decade of service representing Hawaii's 1st Congressional District. He passed away in February 2010. In looking over the legislation that Congressman Heftel introduced during his tenure, I was interested to see that he introduced forward- looking bills to provide incentives for renewable energy and to establish a comprehensive research and development program for domestic hydrogen fuel capability. He also introduced legislation to restore the wartime recognition to the Filipino veterans of World War II to entitle them to the benefits they earned. The Congress finally acted on this issue in 2009, giving these veterans a measure of long-awaited justice. I am sure that the naming of the post office in Cec's memory in the community where he lived means a great deal to his widow, Rebecca Heftel, his children, grandchildren, and his many friends, former colleagues, and employees.

Mr. HIRONO

Mr. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to Speaker Boehner's flawed plan to address our urgent need to raise the debt limit and our longer term challenge of reducing our nation's debt. First, the Speaker's plan is a short-term band-aid, when our economy and markets need certainty. Under the Speaker's plan, we would be back where we are now in a few months, facing yet another possibility of defaulting on our debt. We should pass a debt limit extension that will take us through 2012. Playing with the creditworthiness of the United States is a game that never should have been started. Second, this bill virtually guarantees cuts to Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security while protecting oil companies and the wealthiest in our country from any pain or paying their fair share. Billionaires are not being asked to pay more in taxes; loopholes that benefit the few are sacrosanct. But the programs seniors and children rely upon receive no such consideration. Finally, this bill ignores the central problem facing our nation today: we need to put more people to work so they can afford to buy the products and services that will get our economy growing at a healthier pace. We need to make investments that will pay long-term dividends. Cutting funding for infrastructure, education, and child nutrition are short-sighted decisions that will hurt us in decades to come. The people of Hawaii want Washington to change its ways. They want a compromise. They'd like a plan that is fair and balanced. They want us to reduce the deficit by cutting wasteful spending. They also want the wealthy to pay their fair share. Most of all, they want us to create jobs.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chairman, beside me is a picture of the Cuyahoga River in 1952. The river is on fire. The reason for this fire is that the river was heavily contaminated with flammable industrial waste. This water was dangerous to drink, needless to say, and to swim in. Fish and wildlife could not survive here. Flooding in this river would have spread pollution onto the shore and into neighborhoods. In short, this pollution was dangerous for the health of the people and the communities that depended on this river. It was incidents like these that helped raise public awareness of the dangers of water pollution. Ultimately, that awareness became government action, including the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, in 1970 and of the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972. The EPA's purpose is simple: to protect human health and the environment. It does this by ensuring minimum standards for water quality nationwide while acting as a referee between the States. Despite this important mission, this bill slashes the EPA's budget by 18 percent from current levels, so of course I rise to speak against this underlying bill. It also includes a number of riders that will prevent the EPA from carrying out the duties it is already legally required to perform. I don't know why the majority is so keen on undermining the vital mission of the EPA. I hear them talk a lot about the costs of certain EPA regulations; but what about the cost of getting rid of these regulations? One serious cost that would go up is the cost of public health. The impact of polluting our air and water isn't a speculative matter. We know that it will make people and communities sick. More mercury in the air we breathe means more deaths and debilitating illnesses. More water pollution means families and communities will be subjected to a variety of health risks. In short, more pollution means rapidly escalating health care costs. Another cost is the cost to our environment. Our rivers, coastlines and wetlands are the places that we take our children to experience the wonders of our country. This is where their interests in the natural sciences and the outdoors are kindled. Polluted waters and coastlines mean less wildlife, poorer fishing and a lot less beauty in this world. We have to remember that we are merely stewards of our natural resources and that the cost of polluting those resources isn't only borne now; it will be borne by future generations. Finally, the EPA helps to ensure a fair playing field for businesses. This helps keep their long-term costs manageable. It's a simple fact that a few dollars in prevention is far, far cheaper than expensive cleanup costs later. For those who disagree or question that, I encourage you to contact BP Oil. That company will--and should--be paying for their damage for years to come. So those are the costs the EPA helps to mitigate. That's why we need the EPA. We need a referee that is empowered to make sure that everyone plays by the rules and protects our natural resources. If we pass this bill, we are essentially ejecting the referee from the game of calling out misconduct on certain players, which will only encourage more misbehavior in the future. Take a look at this picture. Is that what we want? This bill is so flawed, there is little hope for it. I hope that my colleagues will reevaluate their approach to this legislation, will pull it from the floor and go back to the drawing board. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HIRONO. I move to strike the last word.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Dicks-Fitzpatrick-Thompson-Hanabusa amendment to delete the Extinction Rider that was improperly added to this legislation. This rider, which has no place in an appropriation bill, prevents the Fish and Wildlife Service from spending any money on listing new plants and animals under the Endangered Species Act, designating critical habitat, or upgrading species from threatened to endangered. This is a big deal to me because Hawaii happens to have the highest number of endangered species of any state in the nation. This is due, in large part, to the unique species that evolved in Hawaii because of its location 2,400 miles from the nearest land mass. In fact, Hawaii's 33 endangered bird species represent 42 percent of the U.S. bird species listed as endangered. All of these live in my district. For example, we have a beautiful endangered forest bird called the Hawaii `Akepa. Thanks to the Endangered Species Act, the populations of this bird are currently stable on Hawaii Island, although it is very rare on the island of Maui. The `Akepa and the other 32 Hawaiian bird species listed as endangered are threatened by loss of habitat, a warming climate, and the onslaught of introduced species. In fact, 69 of the 265 candidate species for addition to the Endangered Species Act--26 percent--are found in Hawaii. Most, like the `Akepa, are found nowhere else in the world. Another example of an Endangered Species Act success is the threatened Hawaiian green sea turtle--or honu as we call it in Hawaii. In the 1970s, before being listed, the Hawaiian green sea turtle was in steep decline because it was regularly hunted and eaten. Since being protected by the Endangered Species Act, the numbers of green sea turtles have increased dramatically--by 53 percent over the past 25 years! Despite this success, the honu remains vulnerable because its primary nesting habitat in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands could be lost to sea level rise caused by climate change. As members of Congress, we have a special responsibility to protect and be stewards of the land, the water, the air, and the species with which we share this world. There is no recovery from extinction. Each time we lose a unique creature or plant that evolved over thousands or millions of years, we make the world a poorer place and rob future generations.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Hawaiian Homeownership Opportunities Act of 2011. I would like to thank Congresswoman Colleen Hanabusa and Congressman Don Young for cosponsoring this important bill. This bill does two things. First, it reauthorizes a section of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA) that supports programs that create homeownership opportunities for low- income Native Hawaiian families on Hawaiian Home Lands. Second, it would continue and expand access to U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) section 184a loan guarantees, which would reduce the cost of homeownership for low-income Native Hawaiian families and would also reduce risk by lowering monthly mortgage payments. The Congress has a long and bipartisan history of supporting Native Hawaiian housing issues. The Hawaiian Homeownership Opportunities Act of 2011 continues that tradition. Passed by Congress in 1996, NAHASDA reauthorized a system of housing assistance provided to tribes by HUD through the Indian Housing Block Grant program. This program provides funds directly to tribes for housing development and other new approaches to create housing. In 2000, the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant was established under NAHASDA to allow another indigenous group support for affordable housing activities. Funds for this grant are administered by the State of Hawaii Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, the entity charged with carrying out the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act. The funds are used primarily to develop infrastructure on Hawaiian Home Lands, which tend to be in the most isolated parts of the state. In 1921, Congress passed the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act with the purpose of establishing a homesteading program to place eligible Native Hawaiians on lands in Hawaii designated for such purpose. The law was passed at the urging of the Territory of Hawaii's Delegate to Congress, Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalanianaole. Some 204,000 acres were set aside for the purpose of providing Native Hawaiians with land. With the passage of the Statehood Act of 1959, the control and administration of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act was transferred from the federal government to the newly formed State of Hawaii. The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands was created in 1960 to administer the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act. While homeownership rates in Hawaii are typically lower than national rates, homeownership rates for Native Hawaiians in the state are even lower. In Honolulu, 38 percent of Native Hawaiians own their homes compared with 48 percent for non-natives. This disparity continues in other areas of Hawaii, where 51 percent of Native Hawaiians own their homes compared with 60 percent for non-natives. Native Hawaiian households in Hawaii are also more likely to be low- income than non-native households. Owner households on Hawaiian home lands are among the poorest of Native Hawaiian households with approximately 25 percent having incomes at or below 50 percent of the median income for the given area. There is a continued need for the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant. I urge my colleagues to support the Hawaiian Homeownership Opportunities Act of 2011. Mahalo nui loa (thank you very much).

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 612, 613, and 614, had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on all three.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1315, the Consumer Financial Protection Safety and Soundness Improvement Act of 2011. Today is the first anniversary of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. It is also the first official day of work for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). For the first time, the United States will have a financial regulator whose sole purpose is to protect consumers. From now on, there will be a cop on the beat watching out for predatory lending practices and unfair fees. Scam artists taking advantage of seniors, young people, and our men and women in uniform will be stopped. And, it will prevent honest businesses from having to compete with unscrupulous ones. It will help consumers across the country get a fair deal. I recently spoke with a young man in Hawaii who this agency's work would have helped. He was sold a $700,000 home at age 19. He worked in construction and, at the time, business was booming. He was told by his lender that he qualified for the loan and that everything would be fine. He was inexperienced in purchasing real estate and trusted that the lender had his interests in mind. He was wrong. He no longer has that house, and today that young man's credit is so damaged that it will take him years to rebuild it. This happened all over the country, and our economy is still reeling. But you wouldn't know that based on the legislation we are considering today. In fact, this bill seeks to limit the independence and effectiveness of the CFPB before it ever gets up and running. First, it gives the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), which is primarily made up of the heads of the federal financial regulatory agencies, significant authority to block CFPB regulations. The FSOC's role is for the heads of these agencies to work together to identify and address serious risks to the whole economy--their primary responsibility is not consumer protection. This bill would reduce the threshold of votes required to overturn a CFPB rule from two-thirds to a simple majority and prevent the CFPB's director from voting. Second, it replaces the single, independent CFPB director with a ``collegial'' commission. According to the Committee's report on this bill, such a structure is necessary for a better functioning agency. However, the Committee report fails to point out that the Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Reserve Board, and other financial regulators are ``collegial'' commissions. Before the economic crisis these ``collegial'' bodies all had consumer protection responsibilities in their portfolios--but too often, those responsibilities fell to the bottom of the to-do list. The Federal Reserve was given the authority to regulate mortgages in 1994--but it took them 16 years to rein in risky loans. Last, in a prime example of Washington double-speak the bill prevents the CFPB from taking over the consumer protection authorities of these other agencies until it has a Director. That is odd given that this very bill eliminates the Director position in favor of a commission. Proponents of this measure say these changes are for the ``safety and soundness'' of the financial system. ``Safety and soundness'' in this case is really code for ``what's good for Wall Street's profitability is good for consumers.'' We all know that's not true. Congress gave the CFPB sole responsibility for consumers so that other regulators will be able to focus on their primary jobs. The simple fact is that this bill would help reinstate regulatory gridlock and silence the voices of consumers--the opposite of what Dodd-Frank intended. We have to remember that the cause of the crisis wasn't too much regulation--it was too little. I strongly oppose this legislation, and urge my colleagues to vote against it as well.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2560, which should be called the Cut, Cap, and Default Act. This is not a serious attempt to deal with our debt or the looming threat that the United States could default on its obligations. If the concern of the supporters of this legislation was truly our national debt, they would not be working to pass a bill that would virtually guarantee default on our debt. This may provide some political cover for certain members, but it is not a serious response to the problems of our economy. To raise the debt limit, this legislation requires two-thirds of both chambers of Congress to pass a balanced budget amendment that games the system by making it far easier to slash federal programs like Medicare (with a simple majority vote) than to raise taxes on the wealthy or eliminate special interest loopholes (a higher than majority, two-thirds of members must agree). Unneeded tax breaks for oil companies or loopholes that benefit hedge fund managers would be protected, but Medicare, Social Security, unemployment insurance, and other programs that matter to the middle class and the most vulnerable members of our community would be on the chopping block. In addition to our social safety net programs, this bill would force cuts in programs ensuring public safety, investing in education and infrastructure, and protecting our environment. Under this bill, multimillionaires could rest easy that they wouldn't lose the generous tax cuts they received under President George W. Bush. But poor seniors who need Medicaid to be able to get nursing home care would be out of luck. Pell Grants that enable middle and low income students to go to college would have to be cut. Nutrition programs for children and the elderly would be curtailed. Government efforts to protect clean air and water and to protect the wildlife, especially endangered species, would suffer. It has long been the goal of some to ``starve the beast,'' that is, to cut taxes to the level that government services they feel are unnecessary are eliminated. These ``services'' include Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, environmental regulation, and the U.S. Department of Education to name a few well-known targets. I recognize the need to get our debt under control. But we are in the process of recovering from a devastating recession brought on by the policies of the very people calling for cuts in spending today. We have to raise the debt ceiling because we have less revenue due to the Bush tax cuts, billions spent on two wars, and critically needed efforts to pull our economy out of the nose dive it was in at the end of the Bush administration. Holding the full faith and credit of the United States hostage is not the answer to our problems. We need to come together and take the responsible action of raising the debt limit and then move on to addressing the most serious crises facing our nation: stimulating job growth and getting our economy moving again.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to the Fiscal Year 2012 Energy and Water Appropriations bill. Last week, the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that only 18,000 jobs were created in June and more than 14 million people are still looking for work--many for over six months. As members of Congress, our focus must be on pursuing policies that will rebuild our economy by providing these Americans with opportunities to work hard and succeed--the very idea that underpins the middle class. This legislation is a missed opportunity to respond to the jobs challenge in a serious way. Instead of investing in our infrastructure and supporting innovative new job-creating industries in the renewable energy sector, this bill under-invests in both these areas. For example, this bill reduces funding for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs by $491 million--or 27 percent below the already abysmal FY2011 funding levels and 59 percent less than what President Obama requested. The bill also cuts funding for the Department of Energy's Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) by $88 million, which is 44 percent below current levels and 81 percent less than requested. ARPA-E is modeled after the successful Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) which has been a catalyst in technological innovation since its creation in 1958. Together, these programs fund crucial research and development in a variety of renewable technologies with the goals of ending our national dependence on fossil fuels, more efficiently powering our homes and businesses, and lessening the cost of energy for families. These types of investments are incredibly important in my home state of Hawaii. We are the most oil dependent state in the nation--we must import 90 percent of the oil products that fuel our cars, homes, and businesses. So when the world markets that set the price of oil gyrates--as it has in recent months--our economic growth and quality of life are significantly impacted. So renewable energy isn't just a feel-good idea--it's an economic and national security imperative both for Hawaii and our nation's future. Cutting funds that provide incentives for the private sector to continue innovating and growing jobs in this sector may seem penny- wise; but it is most certainly pound-foolish. I am also disappointed that this bill fails to make a real dent in our nation's water infrastructure needs. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) has given our nation's overall infrastructure a grade of ``D.'' ASCE also estimates that Hawaii needs $1.97 billion to meet our water infrastructure needs. While I understand the need to carefully prioritize how we spend precious federal dollars, I believe that infrastructure should be at the top of that priority list. Infrastructure investments create jobs, strengthen our communities, and improve public health. These are just two areas where this legislation fails to improve our economy, help rebuild the middle class, or lay the groundwork for our future prosperity. As a whole this bill is a disappointment, and I strongly oppose its passage.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 576, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Amendment No. 68 Offered by Mr. Royce

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of the amendment offered by Mr. Markey, of which I am proud to be a cosponsor. Many of us have seen iconic images of the Cuyahoga River burning in the 1950s. Sadly, this was not an isolated event--the Cuyahoga caught fire numerous times. The reason for these fires was that the river was heavily, heavily contaminated with flammable industrial waste. This water was dangerous to drink and to swim in. Fish and wildlife could not survive. Flooding in this river would have spread pollution onto shore and into neighborhoods and homes. In short, this pollution was dangerous for the health of the people and communities that depended on the river. It was incidents like these that helped raised public awareness of the dangers of water pollution. Ultimately, that awareness became government action--including the creation of the EPA in 1970, and passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972. The EPA's purpose is simple: to protect human health and the environment. It does this by acting as a referee between the states-- working to ensure minimum standards for water quality nationwide. These standards help to ensure an even playing field for states and businesses, while preserving safe, adequate water supplies for our children and communities. The underlying bill we are considering, the so-called ``Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act'' is deeply flawed, primarily because it seems to forget a critical point--watersheds, coastlines, and waterways don't always end at state boundaries. Our amendment is also simple. It preserves the EPA's current role in protecting certain bodies of water. Specifically, water bodies that provide flood protection for communities, valuable fish and wildlife habitats, and coastal recreation. Our rivers, coastlines, and wetlands are the places that we take our children to experience the wonder of our country. This is where their interests in the natural sciences and the outdoors are kindled. And this is where we should expect them to be safe from chemicals, industrial waste, and other pollutants. Our amendment will help to preserve the natural resources that transcend state boundaries--and benefit the health and vitality of communities across the nation. I hope that my colleagues will join us in supporting this amendment.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Madam Speaker, we can all agree that we need to bring down our deficit, but we disagree on how to do it. Republicans in Congress say that the only way to do this is to gut the services that American families rely on. Their priority is to protect the wealthiest among us who continue to enjoy loopholes and tax breaks. They should be paying their fair share. Social Security is a promise to every American worker for years of hard work and provides dignity in retirement and help to support surviving children. Today nearly 55 million Americans rely on Social Security, including 214,000 in Hawaii. The program is vital to women, particularly single women, who disproportionately face poverty in old age. The American middle class and our seniors deserve a fair solution on the deficit that gets our economy back on track and creates jobs--but not, not on the backs of our families and seniors.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2417, the BULB Act. This bill does nothing to shed light on a bipartisan law that will save families money on their energy bills. In fact, this bill repeals that common-sense law. A question has been circulating in the media regarding this bill lately--how many Members of the House does it take to change a light bulb? The answer, at least in 2007, was 314--that's the number of House Members who voted for the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Of those 314 Members 95 were Republicans--so was the President who signed the bill into law. Why? Because this was a good, common-sense idea: Let's make new light bulbs that use 25-30 percent less energy than incandescent bulbs by 2012, and 65 percent less by 2020. For families, that means an average savings of $200 a year. In Hawaii, where we pay some of the highest energy prices in the country, families will save approximately $225. The Department of Energy estimates that these standards will save U.S. households nationally $6 billion in 2015 alone. What's even better: Improving energy efficiency has also helped spur innovation on the part of U.S. manufacturers--creating an estimated 2,000 American jobs to date and giving Americans even More offerings to choose from when it comes to light bulbs. That's right: Americans have even more choices when it comes to light bulbs. This bipartisan law did not outlaw any type of bulb. Consumers can still choose to purchase the familiar looking bulbs that were initially invented by Thomas Edison--the only difference is that the new ones use up to 30 percent less electricity. So the idea that this bill is limiting consumer choice is simply false. But there are many other benefits as well to improving the energy efficiency of our light bulbs: The National Resources Defense Council estimates that over the long-term these standards will save as much energy as produced by 30 large power plants each year. They will also help prevent 100 million tons of carbon dioxide from polluting our air annually. So these standards will help to expand consumer choice, save families money, increase energy efficiency, lessen air pollution, and create jobs. Given the state of the economy, it seems to me that instead of wasting time trying to repeal a law that has been such a success, we should be spending our time trying to pass more laws like it. So I hope that we will short-circuit this ideologically driven legislation, and keep the lights on at the factories and in the homes of the people who are benefitting from these standards. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this legislation.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, engaging our armed forces is not a vote I take lightly. Like many, I was reluctant to enter our nation into another conflict. But the situation in Libya is different. This is a nation where the people were giving their lives to fight for a legitimate voice in their government. For these actions, their murderous dictator vowed to hunt them down like ``rats and cockroaches.'' Chilling words as Muammar el-Qaddafi is no stranger to taking the lives of the innocent. He has more American blood on his hands than any terrorist other than Osama bin Laden. The international community sought our help in Libya. The Arab League supports the NATO mission and this is historic, as it is the first time the organization has supported an international intervention in an Arab country. The United States' role can make a difference in Libya. To say otherwise is to question the very values our own nation was founded upon. I believe that our limited mission in Libya is needed and I stand with President Obama. Let's remember two things. The movement to overthrow longtime Libyan dictator Colonel Qaddafi began with the Libyan people. The United States should stand with the people of Libya and their fight for freedom and human rights. We must also remember that under Colonel Qaddafi, Libya was involved in aircraft hijackings, extraterritorial assassinations, bombings at European airports, and the 1986 bombing of a Berlin nightclub popular with American Armed Forces. Libya had a central role in orchestrating and financing the in-air bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, which killed 270 people, including 190 Americans. Libya was also central in the bombing of French UTA flight 772 in 1989, which killed 177 people from 18 nations, 7 of whom were American citizens. The violence of Colonel Qaddafi is known to many nations around the world. In the early 1970s, Libya sent military troops and financed extremist Palestinian activities in Lebanon. Libya gave safe haven to Black September, the Palestinian terrorists that seized Israeli athletes as hostages at the 1972 Olympics in Munich. Later in the decade, Libya sent armed forces into Chad and Uganda. Throughout the 1970s and well into the 1980s, Colonel Qaddafi either financed or materially supported revolutionary efforts in Chad, Corsica, Eritrea, Germany, Iran, Italy, Nicaragua, Northern Ireland, Japan, Lebanon, Philippines, Sardinia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Thailand, and Tunisia. Ending the reign of Colonel Qaddafi and his destabilizing influence is in the interest of the world. I've heard from many of my constituents concerned that our engagement in Libya will become our next Iraq or Afghanistan. I share those concerns and have expressed them to the White House and was assured that our operations in Libya would be limited. I have voted against the use of ground troops in Libya and my vote today affirms that position. I do not believe that the United States can afford to be involved in further prolonged foreign entanglements and nation building. H.J. Res. 68 authorizes the limited support for the NATO mission to one year. Would I be more comfortable with a shorter timeframe? Yes, but so likely would Colonel Qaddafi. Nothing would give him more comfort than a short deadline for him to cling to so he can continue to slaughter his own people into submission. The situation in Libya is unlike that in Iraq or Afghanistan. The mission in Libya has broad international support. I've mentioned the Arab League and NATO, but also the United Nations, the Gulf Cooperation Council, the Libyan Transitional National Council, and former Libyan Ambassador Ali Aujali support our mission. Traditional Libyan allies, such as China, Russia, and Turkey, have begun talks with the newly formed Libyan Transitional National Council. I strongly support the building of international goodwill and cooperation as integral to our nation's as well as global security. My vote today is for the brave and courageous people of Libya. My vote today is for continued rebuilding of our international reputation. Mahalo nui loa.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Madam Chair, I rise today in reluctant opposition to H.R. 1249, the America Invents Act. In Hawaii, independent inventors and small businesses are at the forefront of the innovation that we need to strengthen our state's economic future. Year after year, small businesses have been responsible for the majority of net job growth nationwide. Congress must modernize and fully fund the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to address the massive application backlog that stifles innovation and job creation. However, I have heard from independent inventors and small businesses in Hawaii who express grave concerns about H.R. 1249. This bill's shift to a ``first inventor to file'' system could create a ``race to file,'' allowing large corporations to use early and repeat filings to threaten independent inventors' and small businesses' rights. Further, to speed up patent processing and job creation, the PTO must be able to use inventors' application fees for their intended use: processing patents. The PTO receives no taxpayer money, and is funded entirely by fees. I voted against the manager's amendment that diverts these user fees to the vagaries of the annual congressional budget process. I also have concerns about Section 18 of the bill. This section establishes an administrative review process for financially related business method patents whose validity has been questioned. This review process is retroactive, and even previously awarded patents whose validity had been upheld by federal courts would be subject to challenge. This is unfair to inventors, who would have to defend themselves again for patents they have already been awarded and already defended in court. Innovation and technology development is essential to growing Hawaii's economy of the future. For this reason, I support patent reform but cannot support the bill before us today.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 479, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of my amendment to restore $3 million in funding for the Watershed and Flood Protection program. Funding for this program was eliminated in fiscal year 2011, and no funding is provided in this bill. My amendment provides $3 million for this program, just 10 percent of the $30 million provided in fiscal year 2010. I am taking funding from the agriculture buildings and facilities and rental payments to offset the cost of my amendment. Under my amendment, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, NRCS, would make the determination on where to direct the funds. The Watershed and Flood Control Program provides for cooperation between the Federal Government, States, and localities to prevent erosion, flood water, and sediment damage. This is also a vital program to further the development, utilization, and disposal of water. It also helps to further the conservation and utilization of land and authorized watersheds. Watershed improvements under this program are cost-shared between the Federal Government and local governments. I think that's a good thing. The program is being zeroed out despite the fact that we have an unfunded Federal commitment of more than $1 billion for 297 cost-shared projects in 39 States, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. These projects would help to reduce flood damage in 320 communities, improve agriculture water supply in 80 communities, and improve water quality in 132 streams. Clearly, the national reach of this program is apparent from the numbers I just cited. In fact, I have a list of the 41 States and the Pacific islands that have been helped by this program, including Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas--the list goes on. States and the local governments have worked together with NRCS, and they put up their own funds to construct flood control and water development projects. I don't think it is fair to leave these local governments holding the bag while the Federal Government just walks away from these commitments. Even shutting down projects of course costs money, and we can't leave them just halfway done on these projects. How can we just walk away from these projects before realizing the economic and environmental benefits they were designed to deliver? I urge my colleagues to support funding for this important program. It affects 40 States plus Pacific islands. I will submit for the Record a list of unfunded Federal commitments to authorized watershed projects in so many of our States. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. HIRONO

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

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

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the irresponsible cuts this bill makes to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission budget and in support of the DeLauro amendment which allows us to debate this issue. These cuts to CFTC indicate that the majority believes that CFTC can carry out its duties with even less funding this year than they had last year, or that their duties aren't of great importance to the American people to begin with. For those of us who may have forgotten, the financial crisis was the result of some very bad bets, bets made by Wall Street firms in the unregulated $300 trillion derivatives market. The bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, the collapse of the mortgage market, and the bailout of AIG and other firms are all a result of these bad bets. The 14 million unemployed, the still weak job market, and the tremendous loss of hard- earned home equity and retirement savings are also a result of these bad bets. That is why we worked so hard this last Congress to pass the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. This act gives CFTC tremendous responsibility for making sure that the public never again has to bail out the Wall Street firms that rolled the dice with taxpayers ending up holding the bag. CFTC's new responsibilities are important, and so is the job that CFTC already does. The current role of the CFTC is to regulate the commodity futures and options markets in the United States. What began as a market for buying and selling agricultural products has become a complex, wide-ranging market for financial contracts. These contracts are based on commodities like oil, wheat, livestock, metal, and cotton, the types of products that we all use every single day. We have to prevent unnecessary increases in the cost of these necessities, increases brought about by speculation. Preventing speculative price increases for basic necessities is vital to consumers in Hawaii. As the only island State in the Nation, we must import 85 percent of our food and 90 percent of the oil we use for energy. We know what $6 a gallon gasoline is like in some parts of my district, and we constantly face higher prices than the mainland for food. So I am strongly opposed to underfunding CFTC, the cop on the beat that watches out for price manipulation. Without a strong CFTC, prices will increase for our basic necessities while speculators pocket millions of dollars. Make no mistake about that. We know this is true because the oil executives, themselves, have told us this is so. At a recent congressional hearing, the Exxon CEO testified that oil should ``only'' cost--``only,'' that should be in quotations--$60 to $70 a barrel. Instead, the price has hovered around $100. Why? Because of speculation. Clearly, to protect the public from fraud, manipulation, abusive practices, and systemic risks, we need to fully fund the President's request for CFTC. This bill not only cuts $30 million from the current CFTC budget, it seeks to deny the agency the vital resources that it needs to meet its new responsibilities under Dodd-Frank. This bill is a de facto repeal of Dodd-Frank. What the Republican majority can't do up front, which is repealing Dodd-Frank, they are seeking to do by the back door by making sure CFTC can't do its job as the cop on the beat. To keep things in perspective, the Republicans are taking a meat ax to people's programs to address the $14 trillion debt, and yet they are perfectly happy to give Wall Street traders a $300 trillion unregulated playground. Talk about going backwards. Cutting the funding for an agency with such important responsibilities is a roll of the dice, and, again, the people of America will be the ones who lose. Once again I ask: Where do we live--on Wall Street, which is where cutting CFTC is, or on Main Street, where the rest of us live? I urge my colleagues to vote against the underlying legislation and the defunding of CFTC. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HIRONO. I rise in opposition to the underlying bill. Ours is a compassionate country. We have leaders who can put themselves in the shoes of Americans who are struggling, doing their best. We have compassionate leaders on both sides of the aisle. This is why it is so inexplicable that the underlying bill, as well as bill after bill brought by the Republican majority to this floor, makes cuts after huge cuts to people's programs--not corporate programs, not programs that hit Wall Street, but people's programs. And again today, in this agriculture spending bill, we are targeting cuts that hit women, infants, children and seniors in Hawaii and nationwide. In my district in Hawaii, 19.5 percent of our residents experienced food hardship in the last year. Let me repeat: nearly one in five people in my district did not have enough money to buy food that they and their family needed in 2010. Today's bill would cut crucial nutrition programs for thousands of Hawaii's most vulnerable and hundreds of thousands all across the country. And while the richest in our country continue to get billions in tax breaks and the oil companies continue to get their billions in tax breaks, why are we balancing the budget on the backs of women, infants, children and seniors? First, today's bill makes a $650 million cut to the women, infants and children, WIC, nutrition program for fiscal year 2012. This would cut as many as 350,000 eligible low-income women and young children from the program. WIC provides nutritious food, counseling on healthy eating, and health referrals to pregnant, postpartum and breast-feeding women and their children under age five. This program has had well- documented success in improving the nutrition and health of families in poverty. WIC has reduced low-weight births, anemia and hunger. Let's put ourselves in the shoes of 350,000 women and their children who depend on this program. Second, the Emergency Food Assistance Program supports food banks on all of our islands and across the Nation to support the hungry. I have visited many of the food banks in my State, in my district; and we know that there is a growing need. There are many, many more families now relying on food banks; and yet this bill cuts $12 million from food banks at a time of great, great need. Let's put ourselves in the shoes of the hundreds of thousands of families all across our country who are relying on food stamps. Third, today's bill cuts 20 percent from the Commodities Supplemental Food Program, which provides food packages to over 600,000 people nationwide, and 96 percent of these recipients are low-income seniors. You've heard others say ending tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires for just 1 week alone would save $866 million. That is enough to support poor women, infants and children for the entire year. And when we say this bill brought to us by the Republicans literally takes food from babies to give tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires, we are not engaging in hyperbole. This is what is happening in this bill. Let's get our priorities in order. Balancing the budget on the backs of our most vulnerable is totally indefensible when we are giving tax breaks to those people, the richest people in our country, corporations that are making billions of dollars. It's indefensible. And where do we live? Do we live on Wall Street? People who want this bill, I think they live on Wall Street. Well, those of us who are opposing this bill, we live on Main Street. That's where the majority of our people live; they live on Main Street. They expect us to support those people-- working people, families, women and children all living on Main Street. I urge my colleagues to oppose these anti-people, wrong-headed, downright cruel cuts to low-income women, infants, children and seniors all across our country. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HIRONO

Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 2055, the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2012. This bipartisan bill passed the Appropriations Committee by unanimous voice vote, and I urge my colleagues to support it on the House floor today. To support those who have put their lives on the line for our country, this bill provides disability payments, pensions, survivors' benefits, and education benefits under the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill. The ward in Iraq and Afghanistan have taken a major toll on our brave men and women in uniform. We must take care of our veterans' mental and physical health needs as they return home and transition to civilian life. Today's bill provides $129.7 billion for the Veterans Affairs Department for Fiscal Year 2012. The Veterans Health Administration serves over 4 million patients. Continuing the practice the Democratic Congress started in 2009, the bill provides advance appropriations for VA medical accounts for both the next and the following fiscal years. Our veterans deserve the certainty of knowing there will be enough funds, in advance, for the care they have earned and deserve. Of the more than 50,000 veterans in my district--rural Oahu and the Neighbor Islands--many live in rural areas. The veterans I have met with cite difficulty in getting to medical care in Honolulu from the Neighbor Islands, as well as not enough services on their own islands. Today's bill includes $250 million for innovations to improve health care assess for rural veterans. These include providing VA outpatient care through community-based outpatient clinics and completing a feasibility study on mobile health services, home-based care, and telemedicine. Today's bill also provides $11.5 billion for military construction, a 4 percent increase over current levels. Hawaii has many military bases, and this bill will support the construction of housing and other facilities on our bases, sending a positive ripple effect throughout Hawaii's economy. Today I am voting for the LaTourette amendment on Project Labor Agreements. This amendment would restore President Obama's executive order encouraging Federal agencies to consider requiring Project Labor Agreements for construction contracts. Project Labor Agreements are short-term agreements for the length of a project that can reduce projects' costs and duration. Project Labor Agreements strengthen project quality by helping the Federal Government specify the project requirements in advance. This is the third time this year that this Congress has tried to undermine Project Labor Agreements. Fortunately, amendments to preserve Project Labor Agreements passed the last two times; I hope the LaTourette amendment will also pass. I am opposing the Amash amendment that would try yet again to eliminate Davis-Bacon prevailing wage protections. This is yet another attack on working families. The Davis-Bacon Act prevents contractors from driving down wages and benefits in an area. Amendments to eliminate Davis-Bacon protections have failed again and again this year, and I hope the Amash amendment will meet the same fate. Overall, the underlying bill supports our veterans and military construction in Hawaii, and I urge my colleagues to support it.