Colleen Hanabusa

Ms. HANABUSA

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to send my warmest aloha to Admiral Lloyd ``Joe'' Vasey on his belated 100th birthday celebration tonight in Honolulu. After graduating from the United States Naval Academy in 1939, Admiral Vasey joined the submarine service and served under John S. McCain, Jr., father of United States Senator John McCain. After the war and a long and distinguished service to our Nation, Admiral Vasey formed the CSIS Pacific Forum, with the goal of promoting peace in Asia Pacific. He is why we call the men and women of his time the Greatest Generation. I encourage my colleagues to join me in honoring the admiral by working to help make his dream of a Pacific War Memorial at Pearl Harbor a reality. In his words: ``There is no recognition for well over 150,000 brave Americans who were lost in the Pacific War. We need to honor them, and their families need a place to mourn.'' Admiral Vasey's patriotism, devotion to duty, and desire for peace should be an example for us all. Happy birthday, Admiral Vasey, and may you continue to have fair winds and following seas.

Ms. HANABUSA

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I want to conclude by acknowledging that I have read all of the various statements and the cases about the property owners along the Red River. I do understand that providing them with certainty and assurance that their property rights are not threatened is a goal that many share. However, it would be unprecedented and would only further complicate matters to transfer the Federal survey authority over public domain to the States. This is not the way our public lands should be managed. There is a transparent, objective process to determine ownership along the Red River. This bill subverts that process and sends $1 million in Federal taxpayers' money for a State purpose. This is neither fair nor just outcome. With the long, complicated history and various ownership claims along the Red River, BLM has to be allowed to complete its planning process and land survey. It also needs the right to have a say, which this bill, H.R. 428, eliminates that right. Congress should not determine the outcome of what essentially amounts to a three-way property dispute by conceding Federal authority to a State. BLM has its tools it needs. We just need to get out of the way and let them do their work, which they have been trying to do over the years; and we do know 2013 has begun the process. I urge my colleagues to reject the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I respectfully disagree. In the year 2000, when the Red River Compact was approved by Congress, and because of the nature of a compact and because of the requirements of our United States Constitution, which I know my colleagues abide by, it is a different situation. This could have been addressed if they wanted it addressed, but that is not what was done. It is not over 100 years. We have intervening facts, like the compact of 2000, which afforded Congress the opportunity to look at this and, more importantly, the States the opportunity to decide. Now, what did they do? They disagreed on the high-water mark. They did not go into these specific issues. I am sure it is not something that occurred within the last 17 years. This is something that existed all along. So I call everyone's attention to the compact of 2000. Last year's bill, H.R. 2130, contained in there the following statements: The Secretary disclaims any right, title, and interest to the land located south of the south bank boundary line in the affected area. It also said that surveys conducted by the Bureau of Land Management before the date of enactment of this act shall have no force or effect in determining the south bank boundary line. So to say that they didn't do anything--or it was being done--the law that was attempted to be passed, it passed out of the House. The bill that passed out of the House contains in it specific language that they are saying they don't want any of that to apply. So, Mr. Speaker, we come back to, I guess, why? Why? The authority to survey and approve or disapprove the sale or transfer of public lands belongs to the Federal Government acting on behalf of the American people. The Bureau of Land Management has held the authority to examine the accuracy of these surveys and make revisions, when necessary and, in this instance, an ongoing process to make changes began in 2013. It is not like nothing has happened. It has been ongoing. The BLM has the tools and authority to resolve this survey problem, and Congress should just get out of the way and allow the process to play out. Instead, my colleagues across the aisle want to use the situation as an excuse to make progress on their larger goal, alienating public land. Just last week, they voted to repeal the BLM's efforts to update their resource management planning process. BLM's new rule increased the opportunities for the public to engage in the management of public lands and help the agency respond more efficiently to changes taking place in the environment and across the landscape. By repealing BLM's planning rule, Republicans are ensuring that more disputes like Red River will develop, more public land will be lost or destroyed, and more litigation will ensue, all costing taxpayers more money. So, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about H.R. 428, it is just the latest step in a very unpopular, anti-public lands campaign. Americans across the country have equal ownership and right to access and to enjoy all the resources. Whether it is a national park in Montana, a national park in Hawaii that has a volcano, forest lands in Pennsylvania, or wetlands in Colorado, the opportunities afforded through these resources belong to us all, regardless of hometown, education, means, or experience. Despite the fact that we are talking about a 160-mile stretch of the Red River, by cutting away at the authority and management tools Federal agencies have at their disposal, this bill furthers my colleagues across the aisle's national public lands agenda and threatens the multiple-use principle that governs all BLM lands, all while costing the taxpayers the money. It is like adding insult to injury. Not only do we pass a law, but we are also paying the States to do the survey. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is very interesting because we seem to be confusing what is at issue here. If what is at issue here is a survey process, then there is no question. The survey process is set up in the United States Supreme Court decision of Oklahoma v. Texas. No one disputes that that should be it. Neither is it disputed that BLM cannot illegally claim private property and, in fact, it does have a process by which it can sell that private property. First, under Section 203 of FLPMA, the BLM may sell public lands for private fair market value if, through the planning process, the public land has been determined to be difficult and uneconomic to manage; the land was acquired for a specific purpose but no longer fulfills the Federal purpose; or disposal may serve important public objectives which cannot be achieved prudently on land other than public land. Under Section 206 of the FLPMA, the Secretary of the Interior can also conduct land exchanges of equal value with the same State so long as the public interest is well served. Mr. Speaker, the reason why there is a compact of 2000 on this specific issue is because the States can't do it without the concurrence of Congress. What is being proposed here, in terms of the survey, is really using a Federal standard. Again, the question is: Why? More importantly, Mr. Speaker, there are tribal lands involved; not only the tribes noted, but also different types of tribal lands, private tribal lands different from that which is held in trust by the Secretary of the Interior, and we are abdicating that responsibility. We have a fiduciary duty to these tribal lands, and it should not be treated basically with, well, if we don't agree, maybe we can come forward and say we don't agree. That is not what this is about. They are beginning the process. They are in mediation. The courts have been the mechanism by which landowners have views, and there is one going on. So why not let the process go? It just seems to be out of Congress' authority to simply abdicate the responsibilities that we have and say: The States can do it. And then we pay for it. Now, that makes no sense. We need to be able to say to those that we have a fiduciary obligation to, and others, that we have done our job; that the Federal Government has done its job. They are in the process. So the question I have again is, why now? Why now? This has been going on since way--I read through all the different treaties and the different types of cases that came up since 1923, Oklahoma v. Texas. So why now? Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important for us--though they have made light of the fact that this has a history, beginning with the Louisiana Purchase--that this is not a new issue. There are a series of subsequent treaties with foreign governments in 1819, 1828, and 1838, which set the south bank of the river as the southern border of the United States and the northern border of what is now the State of Texas. In 1867, when a portion of this public domain was reserved for the Kiowa-Comanche-Apache (KCA) Reservation, the middle of the main channel of the river between the 98th meridian and the north fork of the river was established as the reservation's southern boundary. The remaining land between what is now called the medial line and the southern bank retained its status as public land, which continues through the present. In a series of decisions in the 1920s, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted a method known as the gradient boundary method for determining the location of the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma along the southern bank of the river. In giving certainty to the boundary's location and the extent of tribal holdings, the Court's decision also provided a basis for clarifying private land ownership on each side of the river. In 1981 and 1984, two separate Oklahoma landowners argued in the United States District Court that, under riparian law, changes in the river's location had expanded their private holdings while reducing the acreage of the Texas landowners whose properties faced them across the river. In both cases, the district court followed the Supreme Court's established principle concerning the location of public and private lands. Private property in Oklahoma extended to the center of the river while private property in Texas stopped at the ordinary high-water mark on the southern bank, with the remaining land being part of the original public domain located in Oklahoma. In 2000, the State legislatures of Oklahoma and Texas, along with tribal leaders from the neighboring KCA Tribes and Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations, attempted to resolve these remaining issues by agreeing to the Red River Boundary Compact. Congress later consented to the compact, and, in so doing, agreed to move the jurisdictional boundary between the States from the south bank gradient line to the south bank vegetation line. The BLM began updating its resource management plan for public lands in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, which includes the area along the Red River, in 2013. The BLM doesn't full know the extent of public domain, and that is why they are trying to do the survey. The resource management planning process would update the current RMPs covering this area, which were developed in 1994 and 1996, and establish a long-term plan articulating the BLM's objectives and strategies for maintaining the health and productivity of public lands in the region. As we discussed earlier, in 1923, the United States Supreme Court also interjected into this and set the criteria. We can disagree on some of these issues, but we can at least agree to get our facts straight. We do know, Mr. Speaker, that this has been an ongoing process and this has gone back for different administrations. I think the question becomes: Why is it necessary to do this now? What is it that is happening now? They are in court. They have been in court. They have availed themselves of the court process. No one disagrees with the United States Supreme Court decision. So the question we should all ask ourselves is: Why now? Why take out, in this bill, my amendment that was rejected by the Rules Committee which would have eliminated that portion which says basically the Federal Government has no say in the survey? So why would we abdicate that major responsibility? We not only have responsibility to the tribes listed, but there are also different kinds of tribal lands, which we must take into account. So the question is: Why abdicate it? If as was stated earlier that what we are talking about is just a bill that says to the BLM to do the survey, then why does it contain within it a statement that says it has no right to concur or to approve? I think that it would be a different situation if this was a bill that said: hurry up and do your survey. But that is not what this bill says. This bill says the States of Texas and Oklahoma will do it--actually, Texas will do it in consultation with Oklahoma and specific tribes. Why doesn't it say, if what we want is a survey, that BLM do the survey? I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Speaker, this bill would undermine the progress of the judicial branch and instead prohibit the Federal Government from surveying its own land. It also would force the American taxpayers to pay the States for these surveys. Shifting this authority, as we said earlier, is unprecedented and would cause more confusion. We should allow the parties to resolve this conflict, and Congress should stay out of it. What is troubling is that the bill is being proposed as something that brings the parties together. This mediation is doing that. More importantly, when you look at the bill itself, the question has to be asked: Where is the Department of the Interior? Where is the BLM? Let us not forget, it is the Department of the Interior that has the fiduciary duty to the tribes. The question really is: Can or should Congress abdicate its fiduciary obligation that is owed to the tribes by doing this survey? H.R. 428 does not warrant consideration by this body. We clearly have more important issues facing this Nation. Congress should get out of the way and allow the current BLM process to play out. This bill is a waste of our valuable time and taxpayers' dollars. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Federal ownership of the land along the Red River dates back to the Louisiana Purchase. Over time, gradual changes in the course of the river have created uncertainty regarding Federal interests in the area as well as confusion about the exact boundary between Texas and Oklahoma. Further complicating the matter, Native American Tribes have mineral and other interests in the area impacted by the precise ownership of the land in question. In fact, as noted in the Supreme Court case of Oklahoma v. Texas, a 1923 case, the decision was the boundaries were changed due to accretion and erosion. It is important to note that the gentleman from Texas does not dispute the criteria set forth by the Supreme Court in Oklahoma v. Texas. Moreover, in 2000, Congress passed the Red River Boundary Compact, which shifted the boundary line between the States, but the location and status of lands in the public domain remain unchanged. Along the 116-mile stretch, a portion of the land in the Red River area is still under Federal ownership because it has never been disposed of under the authority of Congress. In 2013, the Bureau of Land Management set out to revise the Federal resource management plan for Federal lands--not private lands, Federal lands--in Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas. As part of that process, the BLM began to survey the lands to determine the extent of all ownership claims. According to the 2014 testimony from the Deputy Director of the BLM, Steve Ellis, the survey process the BLM intends ``to identify, with certainty, and propose management alternatives for lands which fall within the public domain but have never been patented, reserved, or disposed.'' According to that same testimony, the BLM estimates that approximately 30,000 acres of public land exist along the Red River between the north fork of the river and the 98th meridian. They also estimate that as many as 23,000 of those acres may be overlaid by private ownership interests. One of the most significant and advantageous parts about the process for updating land use plans is that it includes steps along the way that allow for public input, analysis, and informed decisionmaking. Once the survey is complete, the BLM has a variety of statutory authorities the agency can use to resolve conflicting claims, including the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Color of Title Act. H.R. 428, the bill before us today, has a troubled history. Flaws in the bill have prevented it from becoming law for several years. Some of those shortcomings have been addressed, but others remain. H.R. 428 would halt the planning and survey process in its tracks. The bill would strip the Bureau of Land Management of its survey authority along the 116-mile stretch of the Red River, and it would force the Federal Government to accept the survey completed by the States of Texas and Oklahoma. Prohibiting the Federal Government from surveying its own land is unprecedented and unwarranted. What is also troubling is that, in stark violation of Republican policy against authorizations without an offset, this legislation authorizes the expenditure of $1 million in Federal funding to pay the States to complete the survey. It is important to note that allowing State governments to dictate the outcome of this process is a terrible precedent, and forcing the American taxpayers to pay the States for those surveys adds insult to injury. Parts of this case are currently in the Federal court of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The parties include the State of Texas, BLM, and plaintiff landowners; and they are in mediation working to resolve these very complicated issues. The nature of that lawsuit is a quiet title action. I include in the Record a minute order dated Tuesday, January 10, 2017. At the bottom of the order it reads, in relevant part: ``Case did not settle but parties are continuing to work on settlement. Court will continue to monitor and assist mediation efforts.'' [Case 7:15-cv-00162-O Document 130 Filed 01/19/17 PageID 1449] United States District Court Northern District of Texas Fort Worth Division MINUTE ORDER--Mediation (with parties and counsel) JUDGE: Jeffrey L. Cureton LAW CLERK: K. Verna LOCATION: United States District Court, Wichita Falls, Texas Case No.: 7:15-CV-162-O Case Style: Aderholt, et al. v. Bureau of Land Management, et al. Date Held: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 Time: 7:45 a.m-6:00 p.m. Persons Present at Mediation: Plaintiffs: (1) Kenneth Aderholt, (2) Patrick Canan, (3) Kevin Hunter, (4) Ronald Jackson, (5) William Lalk, (6) Kenneth Patton, (7) Barbara Patton, (8) Jimmy Smith, (9) Kenneth Lemons, Jr. in his capacity of Sheriff of Clay County, Texas, (10) Honorable Lee Harvey and Meredith Kennedy as representatives of Plaintiff Wichita County, Texas, (11) Honorable Kenneth Liggett as Representative of Plaintiff Clay County, Texas, (12) Honorable Greg Tyra and Cory Curtis as Representatives of Plaintiff Wilbarger County, Texas Counsel for Plaintiffs: Robert Henneke, Bradley Caldwell, J. Austin Curry, and John Summers Counsel for Intervenor Plaintiff State of Texas: Megan Neal and Amy Davis Representatives for Intervenor Plaintiff George P. Bush as Commissioner of the Texas General Land Office: Mark Havens, General Counsel and Mark Neugebauer, Chief Surveyor Counsel for Intervenor Plaintiff George P. Bush: Ken Slavin and Deborah Trejo Defendants: Robert Casias as Representative of Defendant Bureau of Land Management Counsel for Defendants: Romney Philpott, Jason Hill, and Charles Babst Mediation conducted with the parties and attorneys. Case did not settle but parties are continuing to work on settlement. Court will continue to monitor and assist mediation efforts.

Ms. HANABUSA

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Speaker, 75 years ago, the Imperial forces of Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and other bases in Hawaii. This unforgivable act thrust our country into the war in the Pacific. On this day, 2,403 Americans died, 1,177 of them on the Arizona, and 1,178 were wounded. Today, to honor those who made the ultimate sacrifice, there will be services here in D.C., throughout the Nation, and particularly at Pearl Harbor. This is where Pearl Harbor, the symbol of World War II and the attack, is found. That, of course, is the USS Arizona Memorial. Designed by Alfred Preis, it was controversial when first unveiled because people could not understand the significance of it. They said it kind of looked like a squashed milk carton. But when you really understood what went behind it, it made sense. The middle part that looks like it is sagging represented the defeat of December 7; however, the two proud, strong sides represented the victory that our country faced. Think about it. There is a portion of it that is open to the ocean. That is where leis like this were thrown in to honor those who were buried below. In addition, there is a wall with the names of all those who perished. But there is another wall--and this is very significant--with the names of those who survived the attack but chose to return to be buried with their colleagues. A Navy diver takes their ashes down and puts them on the USS Arizona. There are seven large windows on one side representing December 7. There are 21 windows altogether, representing a 21-gun salute. When Mr. Preis designed it, he said he wanted the memorial to be everything to anybody as they looked at it, but, most importantly, he wanted it to be serene. You have to ask yourself: Why? What very few know about Mr. Preis is, like the Japanese Americans, he was detained because he was Austrian. In Hawaii, there were internment camps, not only of Japanese Americans but of Germans of American descent, as well as Italians. Mr. Preis was one of them. World War II created the Greatest Generation of all time, and we must never forget them. We must honor them. But we must always remember that ultimate sacrifice they made. They made it for all of us so we would appreciate and enjoy civil liberties. Remember, in February of the following year is when President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 putting Japanese Americans, whose only crime was that they were Japanese Americans, into internment camps. This group fought the fight to prove their loyalty to this country. Let us not forget them, the Filipino World War II veterans who also served, and everyone who served in World War II. Let us not forget why they served and why they did that ultimate sacrifice. It was so that we would be the greatest country on this Earth and we would provide people with civil liberties. So let us not, as we move forward, forget that. Let us not forget what it means to be a country that welcomes all and has protected the civil liberties. As we look and hear about things like the Muslim registry or building walls, would those brave men of the Greatest Generation really think they fought for that? Is that what they want this country to become? I contend that they do not. On this day, Mr. Speaker, as we honor those who gave that ultimate sacrifice, let us not forget why we are the greatest country on the face of this Earth and why they are the Greatest Generation.

Ms. HANABUSA

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Speaker, I just returned to the 114th Congress, and I would like to have everyone remember that when I first came here in the 112th Congress is when we gave the Congressional Gold Medals to the Japanese Americans who fought in World War II. I remember how much pride they all had to receive that Gold Medal. That is why I introduced, in a subsequent Congress, the first attempt to get the Gold Medal for the Filipino war veterans. In 7 days, Mr. Speaker, we will be commemorating, in Hawaii, the attack on Pearl Harbor--the 75th anniversary. Imagine, 75 years, and we have still not kept our promise to the Filipino war veterans. Many of them are in both Congresswoman Gabbard's and my district. I must tell you, all that they have asked for is a recognition by this country that we will keep our promises to them. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that it is with such pride that I stand here to see that, across the aisle, we have been able to have this piece of legislation hopefully pass and to also know the hard work of my colleagues, especially Senator Hirono in the Senate and, of course, Congresswoman Gabbard. There are two gentlemen that I also want us all to remember, and that is former Senator Daniel K. Inouye and Senator Daniel K. Akaka. The reason why is because they both said that the greatest regret they had was that we could not--they could not--change that act in 1946 and keep their word to the Filipino veterans that they would have full benefits, that they could not reunite them with their families as they had all promised. But, Mr. Speaker, this act, the act of this Gold Medal, will make things somewhat right. It will at least say that this great country recognizes the promises that we have made and this great country will not forget the sacrifices that they have made for us. Mr. Speaker, I ask that all my colleagues vote in favor of this bill.

Ms. HANABUSA

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Speaker, I thank Madam Minority Leader and, of course, my colleague from the Second Congressional District of the wonderful State of Hawaii. Being here today among all of you, many of you welcoming me so warmly, is bittersweet. I am here because our good colleague and friend, Mark Takai, unfortunately, passed just too early. However, before he passed, he asked that I seek the election of my old seat again so that we can continue to do the work for the people of the State of Hawaii, and it is an honor to be here and to do that. I can't end without saying I came in 2010, when we were the noble nine. My noble nine colleagues are here. I can't tell you how important it is for me to see them again. That is what it is all about: everyone in Congress. It is the relationships that we build, and it is the friendships that are there forever and ever. That is what makes this, the people's House, the greatest institution around. So, as we say in Hawaii, mahalo for this wonderful opportunity to serve with all of you again. Mahalo and aloha.

Ms. HANABUSA

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, this body reauthorized the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996, a true bipartisan effort and, more importantly, the right thing to do for all our Native people. In it we reauthorized title 8, which addressed the Native people of my State, the Native Hawaiians. NAHASDA had expired for Native Hawaiians in 2005, and it has taken almost 10 years to make this right. Now they are authorized to the year 2019. Home, land, or ``Aina,'' as it is called in Hawaiian, is critical to all people, especially our Native people. This Congress in 1921 passed the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920, and this reauthorization will bring us closer to meeting the dreams of those who are 50 percent blood quantum or more. I thank my colleagues for the voice vote and ask them to join me in asking the Senate to pass this reauthorization for housing assistance for all Native people.

Ms. HANABUSA

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Wisconsin not only for yielding, but for her hard work and advocacy for native people. I rise in support of this important piece of legislation for all of our native people, and I want to thank the chair and the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee for moving the bill forward. Our native people, all native people, the Native Hawaiians included, have a very strong tie to the land. In Hawaii, it is called the aina. The need to have homeownership and to be tied to the land equates to the preservation of the culture and of the people. In Hawaii, we continue to have beneficiaries of a Federal law called the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920, which Congress did pass, who are still waiting to get on the land--still waiting. This reauthorization will bring us closer to fulfilling the intent and the purpose of that act. I appreciate the bipartisan efforts which have gone into this bill, and I would like to point out that title VIII, the portion that is relevant to the Native Hawaiians, expired in 2005. It is almost 10 years later, and it is only through the bipartisan efforts of this committee and those like my good friend from Alaska (Mr. Young) and Mr. Cole from Oklahoma, who have managed to push this forward with all of our strong advocates on the committee as well. I ask that all Members of this body join me in supporting H.R. 4329 for all the native people because it is how we define and how we treat our native people that makes us a better Nation and a great Nation.

Ms. HANABUSA

Ms. HANABUSA. Madam Speaker, my home State of Hawaii is a unique and a very special place. There isn't a day that goes by that either a colleague or someone stops me to share with me a very special story about Hawaii. I stand here today to ask that you remember us in a different way: a State with a very active volcano which is now within a residential area called the Kaohe homestead, and with lava that is flowing at a rate of 705 feet a day, soon to wipe out a major highway and who knows how many other subdivisions in its way. This area is known as Puna, the same area which took the brunt of the hurricane, later a tropical storm, Iselle in August of this year. You know, they still have not recuperated from that storm, and now they have to contend with the lava. So I ask my colleagues, Madam Speaker, that when we look at FEMA, Department of Agriculture, other agencies which will be able to help us, that when we look at the funding of first responders, that you remember Hawaii, you remember our Big Island, and you remember the people of Puna.

Ms. HANABUSA

Ms. HANABUSA. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding. I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 105 having already taken action on this issue that has every American gravely concerned. I opposed our involvement in Iraq in 2002. I opposed it last month, and I oppose it today. While I intend to support the resolution at hand, I believe we should have required the President to recall any troops that are not in Iraq strictly for diplomatic security. This was the original version of this resolution. Notwithstanding, it is very significant that this House of Representatives will probably pass overwhelmingly this resolution that takes a very firm stand that Congress should be authorizing any further military action in Iraq. We owe it to the people of this Nation. Let's be clear. The President invoked the War Powers Act under the guise of protecting our embassy. There are now nearly 1,000 U.S. troops in harm's way--Apache helicopters and drones, just to name a few--and we are taking sides in a sectarian civil war. Let's not forget that that is what we are doing. Congress must reject a new war in Iraq. I urge my colleagues to demand further action and to take further action to withdraw our troops now before our men and women in uniform are again asked to pay too high a price for our inaction.

Ms. HANABUSA

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Speaker, the American people want and favor comprehensive immigration reform. An overwhelming majority believe in a pathway to citizenship for the undocumented because we are a compassionate country. But you have not brought it to the floor. You have said you favor the ENLIST Act, but wouldn't put it as part of the National Defense Authorization Act. What is wrong with serving our country and earning a pathway to citizenship? What is wrong with going to school and being a good member of our society and earning a pathway to citizenship? These are DREAMers--dreamers of the American Dream. Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with reuniting families, keeping the promises to people like the Filipino World War II veterans, who believed in what General MacArthur said to them? There is nothing wrong with that. Bring the comprehensive immigration reform bill to the floor and let us all vote. Vote for the DREAMers who truly believe in this country.

Ms. HANABUSA

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the 42nd anniversary of the signing of the Title IX Amendment to the Higher Education Act. As you know, Hawaii's own Congresswoman Patsy Mink authored this groundbreaking law, and it was later renamed the Patsy Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act. Congresswoman Mink was a true pioneer, advancing the legal status of women and girls in higher education. This law was the spark that ignited the fire of a larger cultural revolution--yes, a revolution, regarding the status of women. While title IX is most famous for opening up opportunities for women in college athletics, it has had really a greater implication for women in higher education. This essential law banned colleges from preventing female students from enrolling in courses that were perceived to be male-oriented, such as auto mechanics and criminal justice, just to name a few. Title IX also banned male-dominated professional schools like medical and law schools from limiting the number of women allowed to be admitted. Patsy Mink, a former attorney herself, was committed to ensuring that women following in her path, like myself, would not have to face the same battles she did. For that we are all grateful to her. Mrs. Mink once said that: ``We have to build things we want to see accomplished, in life and in our country, based on our own personal experiences, to make sure that others do not have to suffer the same discrimination.'' Similar to the legislation she authored, Patsy Mink--the person--was a true groundbreaker in her own right. She served Hawaii and our Nation as the first woman of color and the first Asian-American woman elected into Congress. Impressively, she was the first Asian-American to seek the Presidential nomination for the Democratic party. While title IX is responsible for many advancements for women in higher education, we know that there is still more work to be done for women at every level, including in our high schools. While serving in the Hawaii State senate, I was proud to vote for Hawaii's Gender Equity in Athletics law, which applies title IX in public high schools, and also to serve on the commission it created. My commitment has not waned, and I recently cosponsored the High School Data Transparency Act, which is meant to help ensure equality for high school athletics. This fundamental bill would require schools to report critical data on funding and participation in boys and girls athletic programs, allowing school districts to better identify and rectify discriminatory disparities. Mr. Speaker, I urge you to bring this crucial bill to the floor. The High School Data Transparency Act is an obvious partner to title IX, extending the spirit of the same law. We have an obligation to ensure that young women receive the same opportunities as their male counterparts at every level. I am committed to continuing the example set by my predecessor, Congresswoman Mink, and find inspiration in her words: ``It is easy enough to vote right, but it is more often more important to be ahead of the majority, and this means willing to cut the first furrow in the ground and stand alone for a while if necessary.'' In closing, I would like to share a meeting I just had yesterday with Kaili Higuchi, an eighth-grader from my alma mater, St. Andrew's Priory. Accompanied by her proud grandmother, she is here for National History Day. Her entry is a Web site on title IX. Kaili said a question asked was: Is title IX still necessary? Her answer is a resounding ``yes.'' I believe Patsy would be proud of Kaili, and that 42 years later a young girl is continuing to educate and share title IX with others. Mr. Speaker, I encourage you to join me in continuing the work of this committed visionary and powerful voice for equality. Please bring the bill to the floor.

Ms. HANABUSA

Ms. HANABUSA. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. HANABUSA. Madam Chairman, the Hanabusa-Garamendi amendment is simple. It would ensure that President Obama does not circumvent the War Powers Resolution by unilaterally committing U.S. forces to operations in Iraq. I have opposed our involvement in Iraq since 2002 and continue to oppose it today. On Monday, President Obama invoked the War Powers Resolution to send an additional 275 troops into Iraq to increase security at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. Today, we heard possibly an additional 300 personnel. While I understand the need to send troops into Iraq for the express purpose of providing security for U.S. personnel in Iraq, and this amendment would not prevent the additional Embassy security recently announced by the administration or any evacuation operations, I remain resolute that we should not resume combat operations in Iraq. Congress and the administration need to seriously consider the lack of objectives or an endgame the U.S. would achieve through further military involvement in Iraq. We know the results when we don't know what the end game is and we don't fully consider the consequences of military action, and this miscalculation is not worth repeating to involve our Nation in a situation that is the result of a longstanding sectarian conflict. After over a decade of U.S. military action in the Middle East that has taken lives and come at far too high a cost of our Nation's resources, we must let the Iraqi people decide their own future. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are estimated to have cost between $4 trillion to $6 trillion, taking into account the medical care of wounded veterans and expensive repairs to the force depleted. This monetary figure cannot come even close to measuring the human lives that were taken as a result of our involvement in the Middle East. Madam Chairman, we simply cannot afford the options under consideration. U.S. forces should be on a new strategy for regional engagement, rather than considering options that we get involved as we have in the past. This amendment would do that. I ask my colleagues to vote for this amendment and ensure that the President abides by the law and does not put American lives at risk by involving U.S. troops in combat operations in Iraq.

Ms. HANABUSA. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Ms. HANABUSA. Madam Chairman, I thank the chair and the ranking member of the subcommittee for accepting my amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HANABUSA

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

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Chairman, the speakers before me have all said the fundamental issue that we are looking at here, which is of the trust and treaty obligations that this great Nation has created with the native people--the indigenous people and the first people--of this Nation. Yet, for now and for many years, the Appropriations Committee has seen fit to remove any and all funding from a critical program that greatly benefits my home State of Hawaii, and that is the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant. This program is an essential source of funding because it not only helps the native people on their own land, but it fulfills a trust obligation created by Congress in 1920 by way of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act. The act recognized the importance of returning Native Hawaiians to the land to preserve their culture, their traditions, and their values, and the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant has helped to facilitate that. Similar to what NAHASDA has done for American Indians and Alaska Natives, the Native Hawaiian title of NAHASDA has opened the door to increased partnerships with financial institutions and has enabled the Federal policy of self-determination to be extended to all native populations across this great Nation. Through the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands has been able to assist over 400 low-income families through infrastructure development, down payment assistance, and direct loans for first-time home buyers, construction programs, and the development of renewable energy projects. There are Native Hawaiian housing lots on each of the Hawaiian Islands. These funds have also been able to address the growing issue of homelessness by rehabilitating older units to make them safe and sanitary. As we all know, the foundation for the success of millions of American families is a secure home. The Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant has given hundreds of Native Hawaiian families that same foundation to succeed by assisting them with affordable homeownership opportunities in Hawaii, which serve as the groundwork for self- sufficiency and future prosperity. A disruption to the stream of funding for the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant would have a dire impact on dozens of ongoing development projects, including alternative energy resources for homes, investments in infrastructure, and low interest rate loans that seek to benefit the thousands of families living on Hawaiian homelands. I ask the committee to reconsider its decision to remove this vital program from the bill every year, and I pledge to work with the committee to see that it is restored. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HANABUSA

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Speaker, I have stood here at this podium many times speaking on the extension of unemployment insurance benefits for what is now about 2.8 million people, and the need for immigration reform, about 11 million undocumented workers, yet you have not acted. Both have very strong bipartisan support, yet you have not acted. How about looking at this in a way that makes our country proud? That is to look at the concept of ``through no fault of their own.'' We are a great country, and we are a compassionate nation. We understand ``through no fault of their own.'' Remember, Mr. Speaker, to qualify for unemployment benefits, you must be unemployed through no fault of your own. The DREAMers, those who were brought here to this country through no fault of their own, let's act for them, especially those with no benefits and no status through no fault of their own.