Colleen Hanabusa

Ms. HANABUSA

Ms. HANABUSA. To the gentleman from Texas, I appreciate the inquiry. As you may probably be aware, because of its unique location and its location before the time we were a State, Hawaii has a large Federal presence, and a lot of them are in the military. Because of the actions of this House, plus the Senate, plus the President, about 20,000 of them are defense. The last time I was able to check, we just had a small handful that were yet not back to work, but we do have a large number who did not work. What is being impacted now are the other agencies which had some funds like, for example, the courts, the U.S. Attorney's Office and the other people like, for example, the State Department. All of them we are watching very carefully, but we have an additional number-- somewhere between 6,000 to 9,000--who are being affected. As the gentleman knows, it is not only they; it is the people they service, and it is their families who are being impacted.

Ms. HANABUSA. The gentleman is correct that we as the House of Representatives unanimously passed that bill that we would pay the furloughed workers. You are also absolutely correct that, because the government is still shut down and because the Republican position is to open up government piecemeal, with no concurrence on the Senate's part, that that is exactly what is going to happen. Many of these Federal workers feel like, Why can't we go to work? We are getting paid to work. Why isn't that happening? I believe that that is clearly a disservice, not only to the workers, themselves, but to the people of this great Nation. It makes no sense. I yield to the gentlelady from Florida.

Ms. HANABUSA. I thank the gentleman from Texas. I think what everyone needs to understand clearly, what the gentleman from Texas was referring to was the level of funding in the continuing resolution which was amended by the Senate at $986 billion. As the gentlewoman from Florida said, for many Democrats that was unacceptable. But you know what, the Democrats haven't had the opportunity to vote because it hasn't come to the floor, but it is a compromise.

Ms. HANABUSA. I thank the gentlewoman the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown). Do you wish to speak further?

Ms. HANABUSA. I thank the gentlelady from Florida. Now I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).

Ms. HANABUSA. To the gentleman from California, I want to say aloha and mahalo. You are from California; but as far as I am concerned, you have been a great friend of Hawaii all along. Your concern over the shutdown is not only for your constituents in California but the constituents of the United States. And I know we in Hawaii, we also have a special place in your heart. So I thank the gentleman.

Ms. HANABUSA. I thank the gentleman from California. The gentleman from California makes some great points, including that we are never fully aware of the impacts, and that is what is the saddest part of what has been done with the shutdown, and that is we do not know what are the true impacts. I can say for my Democrat colleagues, that is the reason why we fight so hard on trying to reopen government. But the question is for the majority party and especially for the Speaker, what about the people? The gentleman raises a great point. I just would like to share something before I call upon the gentlelady from Illinois. I just learned recently in visiting with some of the most decorated members of the Greatest Generation, members of the acclaimed 442nd Regiment in Hawaii, everyone knows about them, and one person came up to me and said, You know, we found out that although our fathers sort of suffered quietly as a result of that war and the result of the rejection by a Nation that didn't want them, that they were suffering from PTSD, we just didn't know that it was called that back then. I think the gentleman from California makes an amazing point, that we have got to see the hidden injuries, because if we can all look upon the hidden injuries; no one, on either side of the aisle, can let this craziness continue. With that, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Bustos).

Ms. HANABUSA. If the gentlelady would stay for some conversation. I had the opportunity to actually go to Rock Island. I know people are probably saying, what is somebody from Hawaii doing in Rock Island? I also want people to know how difficult it must be for Jill because Rock Island Arsenal, what many may not be aware of, is the last foundry of the United States Army we have in the United States. They actually do do things like the necessary plates to keep people safe in the Humvees and the Strykers and things like that. They are also faced with the question as we withdraw or draw-down from Afghanistan, and as we have drawn down from Iraq, of what happens to Rock Island Arsenal, and what they are able to do for the military--the whole idea of reset, and what do we do with that? I can just imagine the uncertainty with sequestration, with the drawdown, and now with this unnecessary shutdown that it must cause her amazing and critical concern about the future of her family, and to put on top of that the concern over veterans benefits. Because we have talked about this, I would like for you to share how your office has been able to get this kind of information because you have actually adjusted your schedule and what your office does to service your constituents. I would like for you to say that because it is so important as to how you have tried to adjust and make things easier for them.

Ms. HANABUSA. I thank the gentlelady from Illinois, and thank you for reaching out so clearly for your constituents. I now call upon the gentlelady from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Ms. HANABUSA. I thank very much the gentlelady from Oregon, who clearly is in her district looking and hearing what her constituents are saying. I will always remember Beaverton, Oregon, and her 700 constituent employees of that company that is unable to ship, because that is really what this is about. We initially reacted to the immediate impact of the Federal employees, but now we are beginning to see, as the gentlelady from Oregon pointed out, that it is more than just the immediate employees, contractors who deal with the Federal Government; it is also the people who need the Federal Government because of their businesses. So the gentlelady from Oregon has brought forth an amazing story, as well as given us further insight into how this really Republican government shutdown has hurt everyone. Now I would like to call upon the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Frankel).

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you to my good friend, the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Frankel). As she always has the capacity of bringing things down to the basics, I would hate to admit that we would be less popular than the Ebola virus; but knowing the gentlelady from Florida, she probably has a basis for what she has said. Mr. Speaker, my Special Order time is running down, and I would just like to say, after listening to all of the people who have spoken--the gentleman from Texas, the gentleman from California, the gentlewoman from Florida, the gentlewoman from Oregon, and the gentlewoman from Illinois--and all of their stories that they have shared and the concerns of their constituents, you have got to start to ask the question, why, and what does the Republican majority, Mr. Speaker, intend to gain--to gain--from this shutdown? Let's also look at H. Res. 368 that we passed on October 1 regarding the amendment to clause 4 of rule XXII that says, any motion pursuant to clause 4 of rule XXII relating to House Joint Resolution 59--and we all know that is the CR--may be offered only by the majority leader or his designee. You add this on top of everything else, the inability for people to come forward on behalf of their constituents to ask for unanimous consent to bring House Joint Resolution 59 to the floor, not being able to do that, and the fact that we have a petition, a discharge petition that people are signing up for because that is the only alternative, is this the message we want to give to the people of the United States, that not only does the House of Representatives shut down government because of a minority group within the Republican Party that is the majority, but in addition to that, you have taken away the ultimate form of representative government, which is that each and every one of their elected Representatives has a right to come before this body and to make a motion and to be heard? But instead we have shut that down on October 1 as well. That should be even more problematic to the people of this great Nation, that a motion and a rule such as that was passed. And, Mr. Speaker, I remind you, nine-- nine--of your own Republicans couldn't even stomach that and could not vote for that. So why are we doing this? Why? It began with, well, we will go along with the continuing resolution that the Senate sent back on the condition that we first defund ObamaCare. We had delays of ObamaCare. We had repeals of ObamaCare, and that sort of lasted for last week and then it stopped. No mention of ObamaCare. No mention at all of ObamaCare. Then what did we start to do? We started to pick and choose and cherry-pick which part of government we wanted to open up. And you knew that was DOA, dead on arrival in the Senate. But yet, Mr. Speaker, you decided well, maybe the optics would be better. But it hasn't been better. It has not been better. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has come out against not only the failure to address the debt ceiling and saying that the United States cannot default; they also said you shouldn't allow the shutdown. And big businesses have also said that. Banks have said that. People that the average person probably associates more with the Republican Party than they do with the Democrats, and they are saying do not do this. Yet it is being done. It is being done. The people in Hawaii will know this concept, and the concept is save face. You know, we have a saying back home that what people sometimes need to do is save face. And I think that is what it comes down to. The polls, Wall Street Journal polls are slamming the Republican position, Mr. Speaker. You are being given but a 24 percent favorable rating. So what does that say to you? It says the people are not with you. The people do not support this crazy--I don't know what to call it. I would like to say it is a plan, but I can't see anyone being behind a plan that makes the people of this great Nation suffer. You heard the story of Jill. You heard the story from the gentleman from California who talks about he knows people are suffering PTSD. You have heard the fears of not being able--not being able--to know when you will be working and when you are not going to be working. Yes, we in the House passed, we passed 3223--I believe that number is correct--that says we will retropay. But that doesn't give them their paycheck because a continuing resolution hasn't passed; and it hasn't passed the Senate, though we believe the Senate will be with it, and we also believe the President will sign it into law. But for those people, yes, it is like an empty promise, the same empty promise that they believe we had when everyone said we are not going to shut down government. Why would we shut down government? And here we are, this is the 12th day of the shutdown, day 12, and do we have anything to tell them? No. Instead, we emphasize the fact that their Representatives who want to see a vote, because we believe that there are members of the Republican Party who will support a clean CR and a voting to open up government at the level, at the level of funding which the Republicans wanted, Paul Ryan wanted, but we are not even able to do that because of a procedural move. Procedural moves are what the people of this great Nation dislike the most, because they feel that it is some kind of hidden deal and we are not being transparent and we are also not giving people true representation. To abdicate the ability to bring something to the floor as important as the government continuing to operate to one person or his designee is exactly what the people do not want. And that is what we are dealing with, Mr. Speaker. We are dealing with this shutdown for no basis, because you have abandoned ObamaCare now. There is no ultimate plan. We have the looming debt ceiling crisis, which is what Wall Street is even more concerned about than anything else, and what we should all be concerned about, because the full faith and credit of the United States should never be in question and should never be in jeopardy because we can cause a recession worldwide with that action. There is no plan. There is no plan. You wanted to show that you could shut down government, Mr. Speaker, so you won. You shut it down. But now, now you must plan how to open it. And that has been always the criticism of our great country, that we always lack exit strategies, and this is another example of a lack of an exit strategy. You win the shutdown, but how do you open up? That is the question, Mr. Speaker. And that is the question that only you can answer to the people of this great Nation. And only you can answer to the people of this great Nation why, why you have taken away the ultimate form of representative government by abdicating the right to bring this most critical measure to this floor to one person or his designee. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HANABUSA

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Speaker, day 8 of the shutdown of the Federal Government. What do we know, Mr. Speaker? We know, 1, you and your majority wanted the shutdown, so you win. You have no plan to end this shutdown--that's obvious--and it's no longer about ObamaCare. But what we don't know is, who do you want to punish? It must only be the people of this great Nation. You pass bills for show only. You know that the Senate and the President will not cherry- pick among the departments, yet you continue to pass these bills. Yet, you won't let the House vote on a clean CR to open government. Mr. Speaker, you tell us when you've made the people of this country suffer enough. You tell us when you're satisfied with the level of anxiety and pain that you have caused. At that time, maybe you'll let us vote the clean CR and let the people see where we all stand.

Ms. HANABUSA

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Speaker, you win. You shut down the Federal Government. But now what? Do you know why you did it? You started with defunding ObamaCare. Then it went to delaying funding for a year and conscience clause added in, and then you went to repealing the medical device tax, and then it went to delaying the individual mandate for a year and making sure government does not contribute to our staffs' medical insurance. By the way, you did that twice. Now there's no mention of ObamaCare and its cherry-picking what parts of government will open. I ask you again, why did you do this? I am confused, Mr. Speaker. But what about the people whose lives you have been playing with? You can't tell them why you're doing this. End this brinksmanship and show leadership. Allow the House to vote on the clean CR.

Ms. HANABUSA

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Speaker, can you just tell me what's going on so I can tell my constituents? I can't believe we are here on Saturday morning, 3 days away from a potential government shutdown, with no plan from you. I can't believe that we are about 20 days away from the greatest Nation on this Earth-- the United States--defaulting on our obligation, with no plan from you. Mr. Speaker, being ``Speaker'' means leading. The majority party-- your party--has an obligation to all of the people of this great Nation to lead. Instead, you choose to play games with people's livelihoods and with the full faith and credit of our Nation--the greatest Nation on this Earth. It is our Nation, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, it is time for you to listen to the people--don't shut down government; don't play with the debt ceiling. It is time to listen, time to talk.

Ms. HANABUSA

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Speaker, sometimes we use words like ``SNAP,'' and people don't know what it means. SNAP means Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. It's supplemental to what people receive. Nutrition, that's its main purpose, and it just gives assistance. What we are proposing to vote on is a bill that would cut $40 billion from SNAP. What it means--and this is something that's very important for us to recognize--is it means children will lose access to things like free school lunches. For some children, that's the best meal of the day that they have. We know hundreds of thousands will lose that. Mr. Speaker, 1.7 million people, 850,000 households will be reduced by $90 a month. Think about your own budgets and think about what $90 will mean for a family that needs assistance. And in addition, this bill will ask disabled people to work 20 hours a week before they can even qualify for supplemental nutrition assistance. Mr. Speaker, this is a mean-spirited measure, and Congress should not be defined by that.

Ms. HANABUSA

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life of Derrick Lionel Martin. Derrick was a son of Hawaii, born and raised on the island of Oahu. At an early age, Derrick displayed the intelligence, integrity, and vision needed to be an exemplary American. In 1978, he enlisted in the United States Army before becoming a member of the Hawaii Army National Guard in 1983. He served honorably until 2001, when he chose to continue his commitment to the United States as a member of the Hawaii Air National Guard. He also served as an officer in the Honolulu Police Department for 25 years. As a veteran of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, Derrick truly understood what it meant to sacrifice for others. A true patriot, he was a man of compassion, understanding, and unwavering resolve. His wife, JoAnn, and two sons, Michael and John, are his greatest legacy and will continue to share Derrick's aloha. On behalf of the First Congressional District of Hawaii, and the entire State of Hawaii, I would like to bid a fond aloha to Derrick and thank him for his selfless contributions to the defense of our country. As we say in Hawaii, ``a hui hou,'' Derrick--until we meet again.

Ms. HANABUSA

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may hereafter be considered to be the first sponsor of H.R. 666, a bill originally introduced by Representative Markey of Massachusetts, for the purposes of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII.

Ms. HANABUSA

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Speaker, a word not much known about 2 years ago now is a household word. It is ``to sequester,'' a verb, and ``sequestration,'' a noun. Today, in the Armed Services Committee, we heard the Republican chair and the Democratic ranking member state in almost unison, Sequestration must end. It is a threat to our great Nation's readiness posture, affects jobs, and the manufacturing base. DOD alone has 800,000 civilian employees. It is not only defense that's being affected. It is all of the discretionary budget. CBO estimates it will cost about 750,000 jobs this year alone. We saw it earlier this year with the FAA. We will see how the U.S. Forest Service is affected by 500 firefighters that are lost, 50 to 70 fire engines, and two aircraft. We will also see 70,000 children lose access to Head Start. What will it take to turn it off, to quote our HASC ranking member? We all agree it was not meant to be. It's a mistake. Mr. Speaker, let's turn it off.

Ms. HANABUSA

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

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In the President's budget the past 2 years, there has been a push to phase in substantial TRICARE fee increases. Even the TRICARE For Life program, the promise of life-long health care many were given when they first joined the military, has been the subject of proposed enrollment fees. The House Armed Services Committee, of which I am a member, and other Congressional defense committees, have declined to grant the authority for these fee increases. My amendment would do nothing more than ensure that the funds in this act are not made available to implement any new enrollment fees in the TRICARE For Life program. Year after year, we hear from the Department of Defense that health care costs of our soldiers and veterans are spiraling out of control and that TRICARE is crippling the DOD with its rise in costs. Yet, Mr. Chairman, for the past 2 fiscal years, the Pentagon has found a way to reprogram hundreds of millions of dollars from defense health accounts to higher priorities. These reprogramming actions totaled $708 million last year in 2012 and $500 million in the prior year in 2011. DOD has explained that the surplus was due to ``uncertainty about medical inflation and health care use, and the impact of continual benefit changes and efficiency initiatives.'' If there is uncertainty about costs, the assertion cannot be made that added fees are necessary for even our most senior veterans. DOD's own documents prove military health care costs are not exploding. The combined personnel and health care costs are less than one-third of DOD's budget and the same as they've been for 30 years. The overestimation of cost growth that has resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars being reprogrammed by DOD the past 2 years is proof that costs are not growing as much as anticipated. In fact, they are not growing at all. The relatively low cost of health care and strong benefits are the foundational elements and they are necessary not just to recruit, but also to sustain an all-volunteer force. Significant cuts to the critical incentive packages that sustain a top-quality career force will undermine long-term retention and readiness. I ask my colleagues to vote for this amendment and uphold our commitment to the brave men and women of our armed services, as well as the millions of veterans in need of health care today. Again, I reemphasize this amendment is to prohibit funds to be used to add any enrollment fees to the TRICARE For Life program. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the ranking member, however, the facts are as stated: DOD has reprogrammed $708 million last year alone and $500 million in the prior year. These have been from the health accounts. In addition to that, we must look at the fact that the DOD budget as to personnel and health costs are less than one-third of the DOD budget, and that has been a consistent percentage for the past 30 years. The health care fund has been the one that has been taking the hit every time. It has been the bogeyman to say that is where we are going to have to cut and that is what is rising the costs out of control, it is spiraling out of control. But that is, in fact, not true. I think that to threaten health care or to not give our men and women in uniform, and the veterans, in particular, the security with which they joined the military for--these are one of the benefits they looked for--by not being able to ensure them that, especially health care, is the worst that we can do. When we don't have the evidence that this is where we should cut, we should not cut and add any additional enrollment fees. As I stated, this amendment is to prevent any funds to be used to increase any enrollment fees for the TRICARE For Life. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HANABUSA

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Alaska. Mr. Chair, this amendment, which I've introduced with my colleagues, ensures that all Native students are supported in their education efforts. H.R. 5, as reported, eliminates and reduces title VII and combines them with the broad title I programs, which is inappropriate and unjust to the programs. What this amendment does is it upholds the Federal trust responsibility to tribes and Native organizations by ensuring that Native Americans, Native Alaskans, and Native Hawaiians, who have been historically disadvantaged, are able to succeed. This amendment also ensures flexibility among the States as to how these programs would be administered. And most importantly, the CBO has found that our amendment has no impact on direct spending and complies with the CutGo requirements. The primary issue here is that Congress must ensure that we maintain this important precedent in law, a precedent in law that we do have trust responsibility to the Native children, and we must ensure that that continues. That is why I encourage all my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.

Ms. HANABUSA

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Speaker, 38 times? How many times will we vote to repeal or take away patient protection from families and to undermine the middle class? It makes no sense. Look at what we know: The United States Supreme Court said the PPACA is constitutional; Millions have already benefited; One hundred million cannot have lifetime limits placed upon their health care; By January 2014, 129 million cannot be denied coverage due to a preexisting condition; By 2020, there will be no doughnut hole, and already 6.3 million seniors save $6.1 billion on prescription drugs; Women cannot be discriminated against by 2014; last year alone, 90 percent of the best-selling plans still charged women more; and Seventeen million children are now protected from being denied coverage due to a preexisting condition. Mr. Speaker, really, 38 times? Why? It makes no common sense.

Ms. HANABUSA

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Speaker, I am certain that during this past district work week you were asked, as I was: ``What about the student loans?'' What people were asking was: ``What are you doing in Congress about the rates that are going to double on July 1?'' Let's review what we know, Mr. Speaker. We know that there are 7.4 million students that are affected. The rates are doubling from 3.4 to 6.8 percent, and this means $1,000 more in debt. We know that a college education can mean about $1 million more in future earnings over a lifetime. We know that we, as a country, need to build up our graduates to continue to be competitive. We also know that 45 percent of Americans hold student loan debt. Mr. Speaker, it is time to act now for America's future.

Ms. HANABUSA

Ms. HANABUSA. Madam Chair, I represent a State that was literally built on sugar, and we are now down to one sugar-producing company in the whole State. We do not have the sugarcane blowing in the wind as we had in the past. What this amendment is going to do is really, when you think about it, do away with a program that doesn't cost the taxpayers anything. It is an agreement between the USDA and the sugar producers to ensure that the agriculture industry remains stable. Think about it. Why do you want to do away with something that doesn't cost us anything at this point in time, that produces jobs and is essential and, instead, give away to world markets that are subsidized? What will happen when those subsidies are deemed to be no longer necessary because of the fact that there is nothing in the United States anymore? Think about it. We need to keep agriculture strong. That is what this is all about. It doesn't cost taxpayers anything. This is a program that clearly works and that keeps this industry alive and well, so it makes no sense.