Colleen Hanabusa

Ms. HANABUSA

Ms. HANABUSA. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. I stand here on behalf of the women in Hawaii and across the Nation to continue to protect the fundamental right of women to have access to safe and legal abortion care. I strongly oppose the underlying bill, H.R. 1797, and encourage my colleagues to do the same. The bill is like a leap backwards for women in our Nation. The very premise of this bill is contrary to credible scientific evidence and does not have the widespread support of our leading experts. H.R. 1797 goes against a decades-old Supreme Court ruling, Roe v. Wade, that gave women a fundamental right to choose, a protection provided in the United States Constitution. And remember, States were given the ability to regulate those laws. These proposed Federal restrictions are unconstitutional, inappropriate, and unnecessary. Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures available in this country, due in large part to the expertise and skill of our Nation's trained medical professionals who offer high quality care to women. This bill would threaten our doctors with 5-year prison terms for doing their jobs, even those that are caring for women who are facing serious health concerns with their pregnancies. It is critically important that our laws protect and support the woman's health, not deny access to care. Abortion care is a private medical decision between a woman and her health care provider. It is not the responsibility of Congress to infringe upon that right. That is why the American Congress of OB-GYNs, American Nurses Association, and 46 other organizations, in addition to 15 religious groups, stand in strong opposition to this bill. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to stand strongly in opposition to this harmful and misleading bill and soundly vote ``no'' on the rule.

Ms. HANABUSA

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the Rigell amendment.

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, the Rigell amendment would lift the current moratorium on the public-private competition to the A-76 process. Unfortunately, it is based on very faulty assumptions. Lifting the moratorium will eliminate the incentives the Department needs to fix the A-76 process, as well as finish the service contracts inventory. It's based on the following assumption, which has been proven to be faulty, that the private contractors, for some reason, save money; and we know from the program reports that that is not true. As DOD evaluates the correct balance between civilian and contractor personnel, it is critical to make sure that our Federal employees, the strength of our country, the backbone of defense, are protected. Efficient government requires focused attention on supporting and strengthening our dedicated Federal workforce and making sure that they have the tools they need to complete our mission. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Stewart).

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, it is faulty to assume, when the Department of Defense has not resolved longstanding problems in the A-76 process that have been identified by the GAO and the DOD, that this is the way to proceed. We must keep that moratorium on until we are certain that, in fact, this is in the best interest of the people of our great Nation. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of en bloc amendment 244, the Young-Hanabusa amendment. Section 811 of the fiscal year 2010 NDAA required that any 8(a) Native American sole-source contract in excess of $20 million go through a heightened justification and approval. The justification and approval is often interpreted to be approved by a ``head of agency.'' This requirement is shown by a recent GAO report to cause a 60 percent decline in revenue from these contracts. It has resulted in a loss of jobs, reduced benefits to Native Americans, and has led to a large amount of unintended discrimination against Native community-owned firms. What the amendment does is it makes it a delegable authority. In my home State of Hawaii, there are numerous 8(a) enterprises known as Native Hawaiian Organizations. These entities are conducting critical research for our defense industry and other sectors of government while also supporting critical programs within the community. It makes no sense to place onerous requirements on these successful organizations that significantly decrease the ability to conduct business. Further, I support a letter to the GAO requesting a full and detailed report with respect to any inconsistencies in the way the agencies are implementing section 811, the negative impacts such section is having on Native American contractors, along with recommendations of how the provisions should be implemented. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to thank the chairman, the ranking member, and my colleague Mr. Young from Alaska for this amendment and for placing it in the en bloc package.

Ms. HANABUSA

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Speaker, the mantra for at least 4 years has been the Federal budget deficit, but for some reason, it is now rather quiet. The question we should be asking is: Why? Could it be because last week the CBO readjusted its projections and has determined that the government's annual deficit is shrinking faster than expected--actually shrinking? The deficit which topped 10 percent of the gross domestic product in 2009 and exceeded $1 trillion a year is now expected to shrink to $642 billion this fiscal year. That's $200 billion lower than expected. The deficit is expected to be 2.1 percent of the GDP by 2015, a rate that is deemed manageable by the CBO. So why aren't we talking about this? Just so we're clear, the $200 billion is not due to the sequestration. Shouldn't we be saying something is going right? Could it just be the implementation of the Obama policies may be working? Imagine if we implemented it all. Mr. Speaker, let's talk about it so the people can clearly hear.

Ms. HANABUSA

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank Chairman Miller and Ranking Member Brady for allowing this bill to be heard on the floor today. As was stated, the Senate Concurrent Resolution 10 would permit use of Emancipation Hall to allow us to celebrate King Kamehameha and the lei-draping ceremony. King Kamehameha has a unique history; and, as you know, Hawaii is the only kingdom that is part of the United States. This is going to be the 44th time such a celebration has taken place in the United States Capitol. June 11 is a State holiday in Hawaii, a day of celebration honoring King Kamehameha. He was believed to have been born around 1758 and is credited with unifying the major islands by the year 1810. By uniting the Hawaiian Islands, King Kamehameha secured Hawaii's future as a viable and recognized political entity. King Kamehameha was the first in a long line of Hawaiian--what we call ``ali'i,'' which is our royalty--who held the needs and well-being of their people as their foremost priority. Kamehameha's legacy and commitment to Hawaii's people is evident today through organizations created by his prodigy, like Kamehameha Schools, the Queen Lili'uokalani Children's Trust, Lunalilo Home, and the Queen's Hospital. These organizations are the bedrock foundations in Hawaii and provide crucial services to native Hawaiians while ensuring the maintenance of our State's uniquely Hawaiian identity. The Hawaiian lei that we'll be draping is a special bond, or relationship, between two people that is figuratively represented by the stringing of flowers together in a circle. The Kamehameha lei- draping ceremony emphasizes the strong bond Hawaii's people have with each other and our State's rich history. Honoring King Kamehameha in this lei-draping ceremony acknowledges our deep appreciation for his sacrifice and success in unifying our island home and reaffirms our connections with one another and the responsibility we all share to care for one another. The significance of holding this ceremony in the Capitol of the United States cannot be overemphasized as it demonstrates to the Nation and the world that the rights and needs of the people should always be at the heart of the work that we do here. This is the legacy of King Kamehameha and his prodigy, and we should honor that by approving this event. The celebration of King Kamehameha has been honored for over 140 years in Hawaii. It was first recognized in 1871, when Hawaii was still a kingdom, by Kamehameha V, his great-grandson. It was the first holiday proclaimed by the Governor and legislature when Hawaii became a State in 1959. The statue of King Kamehameha and the traditional lei draping is over 100 years old itself. In Hawaii, the lei-draping ceremony is celebrated as a 2-day festivity in tribute to the great King. We celebrate it with parades, hula, music, chanting, storytelling, and arts. It is the way for Hawaiians to celebrate our history. The American sculptor, Thomas Gould, was commissioned by the Kingdom of Hawaii to create the statue. It was sculpted in 1879 from his studio in Rome. It was completed in 1880, but the ship that was transporting the original from Germany sank. In 1883, the second statue made its way to Hawaii. The first statue was ultimately recovered and erected on North Kohala on the Big Island, and that is where King Kamehameha's birthplace is. The statue stands 8\1/2\ feet tall with the King in his royal clothing. In it, King Kamehameha wears a mahiole, which is the helmet, and the 'ahu 'ula, which is the cloak. They are finished with gold leaf, reminiscent of the rare yellow feathers from the mamo bird the King wore. The spear in his left hand is the symbol of his kingdom and the fact that he is willing to defend it himself, and his right hand is extended towards the direction of the Hawaiian Islands. The statue in Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center is a mold of the second statue which stands in front of our Ali'iolani Hale, the home of the Hawaii Supreme Court. This was dedicated as a gift to the National Statuary Hall from Hawaii in the year 1969. As everyone knows, President Obama was born in Hawaii. And on June 20, 2010, President Obama issued Proclamation 8534 in honor of the bicentennial of the unification of Hawaii. President Obama said: On this bicentennial King Kamehameha Day, we celebrate the history and the heritage of the Aloha State, which has immeasurably enriched our national life and culture. The Hawaiian narrative is one of both profound triumph and, sadly, deep injustice. It is the story of native Hawaiians oppressed by crippling disease, aborted treaties and the eventual conquest of their sovereign kingdom. These grim milestones remind us of an unjust time in our history, as well as the many pitfalls in our Nation's long and difficult journey to perfect itself. Yet through the peaks and valleys of our American story, Hawaii's steadfast sense of community and mutual support shows the progress that results when we are united in the spirit of limitless possibility. Mr. Speaker, that is what this celebration means to us. It is a symbol of how the Hawaiian people have the spirit of limitless possibility. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlelady from Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard).

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Speaker, we have no more speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HANABUSA

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Speaker, we've heard the words ``sequestration'' and ``sequester'' so often they've now become household terms. But when the Budget Control Act of 2011 became law, no one intended that sequestration would take place. In fact, everyone thought it would be so devastating that neither political party would let it stand. Well, Mr. Speaker, it stands. At every opportunity to repeal sequestration, it has not happened. Yet we know Congress can act to address the impacts if it hits the front page of the paper. Our Republican colleagues did so for the FAA. But it is now time for us to ask: What about the children's Head Start program? What about FEMA for the victims of Hurricane Sandy? What about nutrition for women and children, also called WIC? We need to compromise on these and other major programs, just like for the FAA. We need Republicans to come to the table for the benefit of the people. Wouldn't it be great if we could finally repeal sequestration?

Ms. HANABUSA

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Speaker, as we begin the much-anticipated discussion on immigration reform, we have tended to overlook a critical aspect of it, and that is called family reunification. What's the problem? Family reunification has arbitrary caps and major backlogs. The caps are about 114,000 per country, and most countries have an average of 10 years of backlog. They're working on 2003 applications. But there is one country that has had a greater rate, and that is the Philippines. This is the saddest example. The Filipino World War II veterans were promised full rights for fighting with us against the Japanese in World War II. After the war, there was the Rescission Act of 1946 which took away that promise. In 1990, we finally made good on that promise, but we're processing 1989 applications to reunify these families. Many can't travel anymore. Many can't wait. Families are critical to the success of this country. Small businesses are built with families, values of unity, caring for elders. We must keep our promise.

Ms. HANABUSA

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Speaker, we are back from a 2-week recess in the district. Everyone must have been told or seen the impacts of the sequester. When the sequester went into effect a little over a month ago, people did not see its immediate impact. Now it's different. Many of them, and us, were hoping that the continuing resolution would take care of the sequester, but it did not. Now many of them, and us, are hoping that the President's budget--unlike the Ryan budget, the Republican Study Caucus, or the minority budget in the Senate, which kept the sequester in place--will repeal the sequester. We know for hospitals like those at home that have large numbers of Medicare patients a 2 percent cut to Medicare is devastating; we know our friends who are still struggling with the recovery from Hurricane Sandy will be affected by the $1 billion cut to FEMA; and for our Federal employees, the furloughs to cover the sequester will affect not only them and their families but our local economies. We need to recognize that slashing with the sequester is not the answer, but also know that we need to reduce our deficit sensibly.

Ms. HANABUSA

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Speaker, we will be voting on the Republican budget, better known as the Ryan budget, today. This budget has the distinction of actually being vetted by the voters of this country in the last election. Voters said a resounding ``no'': no to the end of Medicare as we know it, no to the Medicaid cuts, no to the repeal of ObamaCare, no to the protection of the tax cuts for the superwealthy, and no to balancing the budget on the backs of the middle class. This Ryan budget plan that this body will vote on in a few hours does exactly these things again. For the third time, the voters have said ``no.'' If we pass it, we are turning a deaf ear to the people. I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Ryan budget.

Ms. HANABUSA

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Speaker, the Republican budget, sometimes called the ``Ryan budget,'' also called the ``path to prosperity,'' is really more of the same, more of the same that we've seen for the past 3 years. The only difference is it's worse. The budget is supposed to be the blueprint and is supposed to set forth the philosophy and the policy of the majority; but look at some of the problems. There are many of them, but let's concentrate on seniors. Let's see how it affects them. The voucher is back. It means Medicare costs are going to rise. There is no closing of the doughnut hole anymore for your prescription drugs because ObamaCare is repealed, and we're going to lose $810 billion in Medicaid, which is a cut of one-third, two-thirds of which go to the disabled and seniors. The irony is that the majority says it repeals ObamaCare; yet it keeps $716 billion in Medicare savings and all revenues from ObamaCare for a total of $1 trillion. So $2 trillion of its balancing the so-called budget is on the backs of ObamaCare--the ObamaCare that it says it repeals. This cannot be what this body wants to be identified with--a path to nowhere.

Ms. HANABUSA

Ms. HANABUSA. I thank the ranking member of our Judiciary Committee. I rise in support of the Senate bill, S. 47, which reauthorizes VAWA. It passed by a strong bipartisan vote of 78-22 on February 12. It is also an honor to be next to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin, who has really championed this bill. I rise specifically to address section 904, which provides tribal governments with jurisdiction over the abuse of Native American women on tribal lands. The statistics, which were set forth by Senator Udall in a recent article, were very alarming. Native American women are two- and-a-half times more likely to be raped, one in three will be assaulted, and three out of five will encounter domestic violence. And the criticism, the criticism we've heard against why the Senate version of this bill should not pass is because they say it doesn't afford due process. All we need to do is to look at the defendant's rights as set forth in the tribal court criminal proceedings under ICRA, the Indian Civil Rights Act, and TLOA, the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010. The rights are there. Support the Senate version.

Ms. HANABUSA

Ms. HANABUSA. Madam Speaker, today I wish to honor Mr. Donald E. Devaney, Retired, the first civilian provost marshal to be appointed by the United States Army. In March 1984 he assumed the position at Tripler Army Medical Center in Hawaii. During a nearly 30-year assignment at Tripler Army Medical Center, he established a provost marshal office and police department that gained great notoriety by many elements of the United States Government and the local community during a time of uncertainty and many wartime missions. Through Mr. Devaney's leadership, the Tripler Provost Marshal Office has been recognized as a leading law enforcement and security department. Mr. Devaney's service as a Federal employee is built upon a 30-year career in the Army. In 1953, at the age of 17, he enlisted in the Rhode Island National Guard during the Korean conflict to join his peers in doing his part to serve America. A year later, he switched to Active Duty and was sent to locations in Japan as a military policeman. As cochair of the U.S. Army Hawaii Retiree Council for more than three decades, he has provided invaluable service to our retiree families and, as a result, facilitated an understanding by them of the ever-improving and changing medical delivery systems we employ. Madam Speaker, I ask you to join me as we offer our gratitude today to a man that has dedicated his life to service to our country.

Ms. HANABUSA

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Speaker, on December 13, 1971, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments in a case called Roe v. Wade. Then, 13 months later, 40 years ago today, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision on the case, a case that every law student reads, a case that has defined a woman's right to control her body and her future, and the definitive decision on women's right to choose. And this was delivered by Justice Blackmun for the Court. I reread that decision on this day and was struck by the statement that the task for the Court is to ``resolve the issue by constitutional measurement, free of emotion and of predilection.'' Justice Blackmun went on to quote Justice Holmes in Lochner v. New York, and he said: The Constitution is made for people of fundamentally differing views, and the accident of our finding certain opinions natural and familiar or novel and even shocking ought not to conclude our judgment upon the question of whether statutes embodying them conflict with the Constitution of the United States. Interestingly, it was Chief Justice Roberts who also looked to Justice Holmes in deciding ObamaCare. Both cases on the 14th Amendment, both looking to the Constitution. Forty years later, good law.

Ms. HANABUSA

Ms. HANABUSA. Madam Speaker, when Chairman Bernanke first coined the phrase the ``fiscal cliff,'' he was really describing the perfect storm. The fiscal cliff is not only sequestration, the impact of the Budget Control Act, but also includes and is not limited to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, unemployment insurance, the SGR, the AMT patch, the debt limit, other tax provisions. Ergo the perfect storm--major issues that this Republican-controlled House will not address until the wealthy are protected. We must address a sufficient number of these provisions to avert the perfect storm. To do so, we must look to the building of public confidence so that we can continue steady growth in the economy and jobs, the true way to avert the cliff. This is why we must do what is best for the middle and working class first: extend the Bush taxes for the middle class, extend unemployment insurance, SGR, the AMT patch, delay the sequestration--those items which we can all agree upon. We've got to get to work.

Ms. HANABUSA

Ms. HANABUSA. Madam Speaker, people have no idea what we're doing because we don't know what we're doing. It reminds me of being in traffic: we all hurry to get to where--to another bottleneck and to wait. Resolving the fiscal cliff is an opportunity to show that we can work together in a bipartisan manner; but to do so, we must listen and put the people first and the party second. If we don't, a middle class family of four will see their taxes rise by $2,200 in 2013. Unemployment will go up to 9.1 percent. Remember, the cost of extending all of the Bush tax cuts is $2.4 trillion in 10 years. Extend the middle class tax cuts and let the Bush tax cuts for the upper 2 percent return to the Clinton rates. We cannot sacrifice the middle class, the steady job growth that we've seen just to protect the upper 2 percent. This is not the message we want to send, and this is not the message Republicans want to send.

Ms. HANABUSA

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you to my colleague from Hawaii for doing this. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 839, which relates to the death of the Honorable Daniel K. Inouye, Senator from the State of Hawaii. I know that as the most senior Member of the United States Senate, as the Appropriations chair, and as a true war hero, Senator Inouye will be remembered in Washington, in Hawaii, and across the Nation. Tomorrow, he will be given one of the highest honors of anyone in this country, and that is to be able to lie in state in this Capitol. But for me, the passing strikes deeper because he was also my mentor and a dear friend. I had the honor of having lunch with Senator Inouye just before he went into the hospital, and we discussed many things. Know that his love and concern for Hawaii and for America never wavered. He never stopped thinking about how things could be made better, who we could help, and what we could accomplish. He was, of course, a force to be reckoned with, and as I said at the time I just couldn't think about Hawaii without Senator Inouye. Since his passing, statements like the Congressman from Alaska just said about the Senator being their third Senator has been made by other Congressmen to me as well, so you know that his impact was felt very deeply throughout this country. As long as Hawaii has been a State, Dan Inouye served us in Washington--``us'' meaning the people of Hawaii. For most people in Hawaii, he was always there, as dependable as the sunrise, yet he was never proud, never acted as though he was better than the people he represented. I can tell you from personal experience that it is just impossible to be an elected official in Hawaii without being in awe of Daniel K. Inouye, someone who served so long, accomplished so much, and yet made it seem so effortless. Hawaii was and is a grassroots State. You need to get out there with the people, share their activities, eat their food--now, that's really critical--laugh at their jokes. And there was Dan Inouye, the war hero, recipient of the Medal of Honor, U.S. Senator, an iconic force in Hawaii's history and politics, and he just fit right in. Us, the people of Hawaii, we can spot a phony a mile away, but we loved him because we knew he was the real thing. He was genuine. So here was the most senior Member of the Senate, chair of the Appropriations Committee, President pro temp, and third in line to the succession to the Presidency, but in his heart he was no different than that kid growing up in territorial Hawaii, not wearing shoes until he got to high school--by the way, not wearing shoes we called going ``hadashi'' in Hawaii--who volunteered just out of high school to serve his country in war. I think that's why, when he ran for reelection, his bumper stickers didn't say Senator Inouye, or Daniel K. Inouye, it just said Dan. I still remember his political poster when I began to recognize political posters, solid black with Dan, his signature, in yellow. Simple, yet strong, as he was. I didn't know at that time the significance of the colors. Those were the colors of his alma mater, McKinley High School, again, a statement that he never forgot where he came from. For me, knowing Dan Inouye and learning from him, that down-to-earth nature was a very special thing. When he shared his insights about serving the people who elected us and doing what is right for Hawaii and America, I knew it was coming from his heart. Not just that what he was doing was advising to show the true love for the people he served, but also that he was sharing these insights with me because he cared enough about me to pass on the lessons. He genuinely wanted me to do better. Quietly, with that great smile and that beautiful, resonant voice, he gave that gift of his experience and his wisdom. He was a man of such accomplishment and power who was also unbelievably generous of himself. I will never forget that gift from my friend, Dan Inouye. For the next few days, as we say good-bye to a genuine hero, a champion of Hawaii, a political icon, I hope, Mr. Speaker, you will join us in remembering a wonderful man and pass this resolution so that we may all say, ``Aloha, Dan, mahalo, and thank you.''

Ms. HANABUSA

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you very much to the gentleman from California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an extraordinary person who has shaped and defined what my home State, Hawaii, is today, a State which is unique and as special as the person I honor. The person I rise to honor is Daniel K. Inouye, a person who cannot be described by a single adjective, a person whose accomplishments would cause you to pause and ask, Is this one person? Is this one man? This is a person who was awarded the greatest honor anyone who serves in the military can achieve, the Congressional Medal of Honor. But it was an honor about 55 years late from a country that questioned his loyalty due to the fact that he was an American of Japanese ancestry; a person who could not get a haircut after being severely wounded and giving his arm in battle because he looked like the enemy; a person who insisted that instead of being bitter, he would dedicate his life to doing all he can to right social inequities and discrimination of all kinds. To do this, he became a part of the Democratic revolution that took control of Hawaii's territorial legislature. Remember, back then, Hawaii was run by the plantation bosses, and it was the Democratic revolution that shifted the power base. He is also a person who served his territorial government, his State, and his Nation for a period of time just short of 60 years; a person who came to Congress and was recognized by his peers to serve and chair various committees, the most recent the Senate Appropriations Committee, along with being President pro tempore and on historic investigation committees like Watergate and Iran Contra. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, what he has seen. Imagine more so what brilliance and skills he possessed to serve so effectively for all these years. He has left such a mark on Hawaii. Hawaii is the home of the Pacific Command. There is no question in my mind that the pivot to Asia-Pacific is possible because of his vision, a vision shared by the President; a vision which is made possible by the Senator's strong commitment to entities such as the East-West Center and his placement of the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center in Hawaii so that the whole Pacific benefits. Hawaii's military importance goes without saying, as the investments made to Pearl Harbor, the Pacific Missile Range Facility, PACOM, Schofield, Hickam, Kaneohe Marine Corps, Pohakuloa, just to name a few, were all part of his plan on how to stabilize Hawaii's economy and this Nation and the world. The Senator recognized that the future for Hawaii is getting off our dependence on fossil fuels, a conversation, by the way, that we had at the last delegation meeting which he chaired where he made it very clear that this was his priority. He was, as you can expect, already ahead of everyone because he had been funding research and development in this area for years. He also knew that education was critical to our success and insisted on ensuring that the University of Hawaii be the land, sea, and space grant institution that it is--one of the few institutions that has all three designations. But the person I will miss the most is the man who always said ``Just call me Dan'' to whomever he met. It didn't matter who it was. It was ``just call me Dan''--the person who shared stories about the values he was raised with, which I think was his way of giving us a glimpse of what he was made of. At his 88th birthday party--88 is a very significant birthday, especially among the Japanese community--he shared the story of his father and a carp--yes, the fish, carp. His father told him to be like a carp, fighting as hard as you can as the carp did, but when it was time to die, you died with dignity. The Senator did exactly that, but then you would expect nothing less from the person of whom no one word can describe, a person who did not want buildings named after him. He just wanted to be remembered as someone who represented the people of Hawaii honestly and to the best of his ability. When asked for his assessment of how he did, he just basically said, ``I think I did okay.'' Senator, if what you did is just ``okay,'' the rest of us are failing because not one of us can measure up to your standard of okay. Mr. Speaker, you have no idea how we in Hawaii are so anxious because we do not know how to make up for our loss. We will not have him, Senator Inouye, to rely upon to make things okay. The Senator said ``aloha'' as his last word. We can only say ``aloha'' and ``mahalo'' to you, Senator, and to Irene, Kenny, and Maggie for sharing you with us.

Ms. HANABUSA

Ms. HANABUSA. As a Nation, this is one of the most positive acts that we can do, Mr. Speaker.