[Pages H11965-H11973]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 505, NATIVE HAWAIIAN GOVERNMENT
REORGANIZATION ACT OF 2007
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee
on Rules, I call up House Resolution 764 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 764
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
505) to express the policy of the United States regarding the
United States relationship with Native Hawaiians and to
provide a process for the recognition by the United States of
the Native Hawaiian governing entity. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived except those
arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The bill shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions of
the bill are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill, and any amendment thereto,
to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one
hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural
Resources; (2) the amendment printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules, if offered by Representative Flake of
Arizona or his designee, which shall be in order without
intervention of any point of order (except those arising
under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI) or demand for division of
the question, shall be considered as read, and shall be
separately debatable for ten minutes equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 505 pursuant to this
resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous
question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the
bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Blumenauer). The gentleman from Florida
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only,
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington, my
good friend, Representative Hastings. All time yielded during
consideration of the rule is for debate only.
General Leave
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 764 provides a structured rule for
consideration of H.R. 505, the Native Hawaiian Government
Reorganization Act of 2007. The resolution provides 1 hour of debate
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Natural Resources. The rule makes in order
an amendment offered by Representative Flake of Arizona. This was the
only amendment submitted to the Rules Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to speak for long about this legislation
other than to express my sincere hope that this body will move forward
expeditiously with its passage. Our Nation is greater because of its
vast diversity and the living narrative of all those who contribute to
it. However, make no mistake, our government has treated a number of
cultural communities in a less than favorable manner.
Mr. Speaker, we are not here to debate the particulars of our
Nation's dealings with Native Hawaiians. However, it is only right that
all indigenous people should have a right to determine how they should
interact with our government.
[[Page H11966]]
As my good friend from Hawaii, Representative Neil Abercrombie,
mentioned in the Rules Committee, the current system of land tenure for
Native Hawaiians is organized under the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.
This State agency does not meet the needs of Native Hawaiians in the
most effective manner as it is currently arranged. What the community
demands and needs is an entity in which the Native Hawaiians can be
effectively engaged. Rightfully, this legislation will give Native
Hawaiians an opportunity to create such an entity and empower
themselves with self-determination.
I do want to make note of my concern that there are some in this body
who are seeking to create controversy where none exists. Contrary to
what some say today, this bill does not allow gaming on Native Hawaiian
lands, nor does it lay the groundwork for gaming. On the contrary, it
takes the necessary steps to put Native Hawaiians on the necessary path
to control their destiny.
Additionally, similar legislation has passed the House in the 106th
Congress and was reported out of the Natural Resources Committee in
both the 107th and 109th Congresses. Unfortunately, the measure was
never taken any further until today.
Mr. Speaker, this rule provides the appropriate framework for debate
on this bipartisan legislation, which is the culmination of many years
of negotiation. I have been in this body, and I have seen Neil
Abercrombie, and now Mazie Hirono, and before, Patsy Mink, work
actively on this particular legislation.
The lack of amendments submitted to the Rules Committee for this
legislation is a testament to years of bipartisan collaboration. It is
only right that we bring this legislation to the full floor today in
this manner.
I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend
and namesake from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me the customary
30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
{time} 1215
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation,
offered in good faith by my friend and colleague from Hawaii (Mr.
Abercrombie), would create a process, and I want to emphasize
``process,'' because that is what this is, for establishing and
recognizing a Native Hawaiian government entity that would be empowered
to act on behalf of its members with the State and Federal Government.
However, Mr. Speaker, as the Wall Street Journal noted in 2005, the
practical effect of granting this status to self-identified Native
Hawaiians would be to allow this new class of American citizens to
declare, and I quote again from the Wall Street Journal, ``complete
legal and territorial independence from the United States and the
establishment of a Hawaiian nation-state.''
Mr. Speaker, before this statement is dismissed out of hand as a
completely unbelievable statement dreamed up by the editorial board of
the Wall Street Journal, I should mention that they were not the ones
that were making this claim. They were merely reporting on a statement
made by the State Office of Hawaiian Affairs, which first acknowledged
this fact.
In addition, a recent statement made by the U.S. Civil Rights
Commission raised concerns that this legislation, and, again, I quote
from the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, ``would discriminate on the
basis of race or national origin and further subdivide American people
into discrete subgroups according to various degrees of privilege.''
Despite the best efforts of this legislation's advocates to compare
Native Americans with Native American tribes who govern reservations
and often live on them, this legislation would make it possible for our
next-door neighbors in Hawaii to suddenly coexist under different legal
regimes, a clear violation of the 14th amendment of the Constitution's
equal protection clause.
Mr. Speaker, because this legislation would grant broad governmental
powers to a racially defined group, to include all living descendants.
The new Native Hawaiians created by this bill would need no geographic,
political or cultural connection to Hawaii, much less a physical
connection to a distinct Native Hawaiian community. As the Federal
courts have recently explained, this is problematic. Again, I quote the
Federal courts: ``The history of the indigenous Hawaiians is
fundamentally different from that of indigenous groups in federally
recognized Indian tribes in the continental United States.''
Finally, Mr. Speaker, this legislation raises significant
constitutional concerns, which have been raised on other bills this
year, namely, H.R. 8345, the Hawaiian Ownership Act of 2007, which the
House considered in March of this year. The Hawaiian Township Act
initially failed under suspension of the rules because 162 Members of
the House recognized, and in 2000, the Supreme Court ruled in Rice v.
Cayetano, that the current configuration of Justices would likely
strike down the Federal benefits flowing to Native Americans as an
unconstitutional racial set-aside, if given the chance.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that there are legitimate constitutional
concerns that must be addressed in the underlying Native Hawaiian
Government Reorganization Act. I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, that the rule
makes in order an amendment to be offered by Mr. Flake of Arizona that
would attempt to address the constitutional concerns and ensure the
underlying legislation complies with the equal protection clause of the
14th amendment of the United States Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2
minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms.
Hirono), who is an original sponsor of this measure.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. I thank
Chairman Slaughter and Vice Chair McGovern for the rule which fairly
gives the only amendment to be filed due consideration pursuant to
House rules. I disagree with the amendment because it, if adopted,
unnecessarily creates confusion where none exists.
The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization bill is a good one, the
result of over 6 years of fine-tuning and negotiations, including
significant compromises with the Department of Justice, Department of
the Interior, and the Office of Management and Budget to conceive a law
that should be approved by all persons concerned with the welfare of
Native Hawaiians.
This bill is supported by the Republican Governor of the State of
Hawaii, the Hawaii State legislature, the American Bar Association, the
National Congress of American Indians, the National Education
Association, the NAACP, League of United Latin American Citizens, and
dozens of other civil rights, professional associations and unions.
I will enter into the Record a list of all supporters of this
measure, as well as letters of support from the Governor of the State
of Hawaii, Linda Lingle; the American Bar Association; National
Congress of American Indians; and the Japanese American Citizens
League, and thank them for their wholehearted support.
Mr. Speaker, let me close by quoting a sentence from the letter from
the National Congress of American Indians, which is of particular
relevance to the proposed amendment to be offered. ``To invoke the
equal protection or due process clause of the Constitution in this
context, as some of the legislation's critics attempt to do, is a
perversion of what those clauses were intended to do. Those submitting
this argument are using the very cornerstones of justice and fairness
in our democracy to deny equal protection to one group of indigenous
people.''
Mr. Speaker, I urge this body to adopt the rule so we may get on to
the merits of this important legislation that will at long last afford
the Native Hawaiian people self-determination and self-governance long
given to other indigenous people of the United States but denied to
Native Hawaiians.
[[Page H11967]]
S. 310/H.R. 505: Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act--To
Express the Policy of the U.S. Regarding the U.S. Relationship With
Native Hawaiians and To Provide a Process for the Recognition by the
U.S. of the Native Hawaiian Governing Entity
Standing together for justice
The following groups, entities and individuals from around
the islands and across the Nation have pledged their support
for Native Hawaiian self-determination through federal
legislation extending a process of official recognition to
Native Hawaiians as the indigenous people of Hawai`i, similar
to the existing federal policy available to American Indians
and Alaska Natives:
Hawai`i organizations & entities
Alu Like, Inc.; Alan M. Arakawa, Mayor, County of Maui;
Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs; Council for Native
Hawaiian Advancement; Daughters and Sons of Hawaiian
Warriors--Mamakakaua; Hale O Na Ali`i O Hawai`i; Hawaii
Carpenters Union; Hawaii Government Employees Association
(HGEA); Hawaii State AFL-CIO; Hawai`i State Legislature; and
Hawai`i State Teachers' Association.
Hawaiian Homes Commission; Hui Hanai; Hui Kako`o `Aina
Ho`opulapula; I Mua Group; International Longshore and
Warehouse Union (ILWU); Japanese American Citizens League
(Honolulu Chapter); Kamehameha Schools; Kamehameha Schools
Alumni Association (KSAA); Ko`olaupoko Hawaiian Civic Club;
and Kualoa-Heeia Hawaiian Civic Club.
Linda Lingle, Governor, State of Hawai`i; Nanakuli Housing
Corporation; National Association of Social Workers (Hawaii
Chapter); Native Hawaiian Chamber of Commerce; Native
Hawaiian Economic Alliance; Office of Hawaiian Affairs; Royal
Order of Kamehameha 1; and State Council of Hawaiian
Homestead Associations.
National, regional & international entities
Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians (ATNI)--Established
in 1953, ATNI represents and advocates for regional, national
and specific Tribal concerns. It is comprised of 54 Northwest
Tribal governments from Oregon, Idaho, Washington, southeast
Alaska, northern California and western Montana.
Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN)--AFN is the largest
statewide Native organization in Alaska. It represents over
200 Alaska Native villages, corporations, and associations.
AFN's mission is to enhance and promote the cultural,
economic, and political voice of the entire Alaska Native
community.
American Bar Association (ABA)--The American Bar
Association is the largest voluntary professional association
in the world. With more than 400,000 members, the ABA
provides law school accreditation, continuing legal
education, information about the law, programs to assist
lawyers and judges in their work, and initiatives to improve
the legal system for the public.
Association of Asian Pacific Community Health Organizations
(AAPCHO)--AAPCHO is a national association representing
community health organizations dedicated to promoting
advocacy, collaboration and leadership that improves the
health status and access of Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians
and Pacific Islanders within the United States, its
territories and freely associated states, primarily through
member community health clinics.
Governors' Interstate Indian Council (GIIC)--Represents 21
state Indian Affairs agencies and organizations.
Inter Tribal Council of Arizona (ITCA)--Established in
1952, ITCA is comprised of 19 member tribes and provides a
united voice for tribal governments located in the State of
Arizona.
Japanese American Citizens League (JACL--National)--JACL is
the Nation's oldest and largest Asian Pacific American civil
rights organization, with over 24,000 members in 23 states.
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR)--LCCR consists
of more than 180 national organizations, representing persons
of color, women, children, labor unions, individuals with
disabilities, older Americans, major religious groups, gays
and lesbians and civil liberties and human rights groups.
League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC--
National)--With approximately 115,000 members throughout the
United States and Puerto Rico, LULAC is the largest and
oldest Hispanic organization in the United States.
League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC--
California).
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
(MALDEF)--MALDEF is the leading nonprofit Latino litigation,
advocacy and educational outreach institution in the U.S.
Asian American Justice Center (AAJC)--AAJC, formerly the
National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, is one of
the Nation's leading experts on issues of importance to the
Asian American community including: affirmative action, anti-
Asian violence prevention/race relations, census, immigrant
rights, language access, and voting rights.
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
(NAACP)--The NAACP is the Nation's oldest and largest civil
rights organization. Its half-million adult and youth members
throughout the United States and the world are the premier
advocates for civil rights in their communities while
conducting voter mobilization and monitoring equal
opportunity in the public and private sectors.
National Association of Social Workers (NASW)--The National
Association of Social Workers represents over 150,000 social
workers in the U.S.
National Coalition of Asian Pacific Americans (NCAPA)--
NCAPA is a coalition of the Nation's leading Asian Pacific
American organizations. It represents the interests of the
greater APA community and provides a national voice on APA
issues.
National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community
Development (National CAPACD)--National CAPACD's mission is
to enhance the capacity and ability of community based
organizations to conduct community development activities for
the Asian and Pacific Islander American communities.
National Congress of American Indians (NCAI)--NCAI is the
Nation's oldest and largest American Indian and Alaska Native
organization that represents over 250 member tribes.
National Council of La Raza (NCLR)--NCLR is the largest
constituency-based national Hispanic organization, serving
all Hispanic nationality groups in all regions of the
country. NCLR has over 270 formal affiliates who together
serve 40 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia--
and a broader network of more than 30,000 groups and
individuals nationwide--reaching more than three and a half
million Hispanics annually.
National Indian Education Association (NIEA)--Established
in 1969, NIEA is the largest national Indian organization of
American Indian, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian educators,
administrators, parents and students in the United States,
providing a forum to discuss and act upon issues affecting
the education of indigenous people.
National Organization of Pacific Islanders in America
(NOPIA)--NOPIA is dedicated to ensuring the protection of
rights and fair treatment of all Pacific Islander Americans
through legislative and policy initiatives at all levels of
government.
Organization of Chinese Americans (OCA)--OCA is dedicated
to securing the rights of Chinese American and Asian American
citizens and permanent residents through legislative and
policy initiatives at all levels of the government. OCA aims
to embrace the hopes and aspirations of the nearly 2 million
citizens and residents of Chinese ancestry in the United
States as well as to better the lives of the 10 million Asian
Americans across the country.
Tribal Education Departments National Assembly (TEDNA)--A
membership organization for the Education Departments of
American Indian and Alaska Native Tribes.
United South and Eastern Tribes (USET)--USET is an inter-
tribal organization that collectively represents its 24
federally recognized member Tribes at the regional and
national level. USET is dedicated to promoting Indian
leadership, improving the quality of life for American
Indians, and protecting Indian rights and natural resources
on tribal lands.
Virginia Indian Tribal Alliance For Life (VITAL)--An
independent public organization, established to support
Virginia Indian Initiatives by funding lobbyist and
bipartisan political campaigns which support the needs of
Virginia Indians in education, healthcare and economic
development.
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Public Lands
Authority--Established by the Constitution of the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands to manage and
dispose of the public lands for the benefit of the people of
the Commonwealth who are of Northern Marianas descent.
National Federation of Filipino American Associations--
Hawaii Pacific Region 12 (NaFFAA--HPR 12)--NaFFAA was
established in 1997 to promote the welfare and well-being of
all Filipinos and Filipino Americans throughout the U.S., and
Region 12 is Hawai'i, Guam and Commonwealth of Northern
Mariana Islands.
Individual Supporters: Joe Shirley, President, Navajo
Nation.
Introducers of S. 310 on 1/17/07: Senator Daniel K. Akaka
and Senator Daniel K. Inouye.
S. 310 Co-Sponsors: Senator Maria Cantwell on 1/17/07,
Senator Norm Coleman on 1/17/07, Senator Byron L. Dorgan on
1/17/07, Senator Lisa Murkowski on 1/17/07, Senator Gordon H.
Smith on 1/17/07, Senator Ted Stevens on 1/17/07, and Senator
Christopher J. Dodd on 1/17/07.
Introducers of H.R. 505 on 1/17/07: Representative Neil
Abercrombie and Representative Mazie Hirono.
H.R. 505 Co-Sponsors: Delegate Madeleine Z. Bordallo on 2/
27/07, Delegate Eni Faleomavaega on 2/27/07, and
Representative James P. Moran on 2/27/07.
____
National Congress of
American Indians,
Washington, DC, October 22, 2007.
Re Support H.R. 505--Native Hawaiian Government
Reorganization Act of 2007.
Dear Representative: I am writing on behalf of the National
Congress of American Indians (NCAI), the nation's oldest and
largest organization of tribal governments, to express our
strong support of H.R. 505, the Native Hawaiian Government
Reorganization Act of 2007. As this matter has made its way
through Congress, the NCAI member tribes have consistently
passed resolutions supporting the Native Hawaiian right to
self-determination (attached). NCAI and the tribal nations we
represent continue to support
[[Page H11968]]
Native Hawaiian people in their efforts towards a path to
self-determination, and we urge you to do the same by voting
in favor of H.R. 505.
H.R. 505 would reaffirm the Native Hawaiian right to self-
governance and enable the creation of a process that will
lead to self-determination and economic self-sufficiency for
Native Hawaiian people. Like all of the nation's indigenous
peoples, Native Hawaiians lived on their homelands and
governed their own affairs before the first contact with
Europeans until the overthrow of the Native Hawaiian
government in 1893. Since that time, Native Hawaiians have
continued to suffer more than a century of injustice,
including neglect and abuse of Native Hawaiian entitlements
and civil rights, by the United States.
Like all of the indigenous peoples of the United States,
Native Hawaiians deserve the right to determine their own
future. The purpose of self-determination is not simply for
its own sake. Rather, it is what enables indigenous people to
maintain their culture, language, and identity. This is a
purpose that all American citizens can support. Congress has
consistently supported Native Hawaiian recognition through
numerous programs intended to benefit Native Hawaiians along
with the other indigenous peoples of the United States.
Furthermore, it is a purpose that was recently affirmed by
the United Nations in the Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples, which passed with overwhelming support.
Some critics have misstated the effect of H.R. 505. Let me
be clear that this bill, like all legislation impacting
tribal governments, concerns U.S. policy toward and
relationship with the nation's sovereign, indigenous peoples
and is not race-based legislation. The unique legal and
political relationship that indigenous Hawaiians have with
the United States is like that of all Native Americans and is
based on our status as aboriginal people with pre-existing
governments with whom the U.S. entered treaties and other
agreements. It is this historical, political reality that
provides the foundation for the unique relationship that has
always existed--and continues to exist today--between the
United States and the indigenous people whose homelands fall
within the borders of what is now the United States.
The argument that recognition of a Native Hawaiian
governing entity would establish a race-based government is
antithetical to the very foundation of the United States
government's relationship with the indigenous peoples who
have inhabited this land from time immemorial--a relationship
that has long been recognized by Congress, the federal
courts, and the Executive branch. Those making this argument
are suggesting that Native Hawaiians should, and indeed must,
be treated differently from the other indigenous peoples
residing in what is now the United States.
The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act would
establish parity for Native Hawaiians with the other
indigenous peoples of America. To invoke the equal protection
or due process clauses of the Constitution in this context,
as some of the legislation's critics attempt to do, is a
perversion of what those clauses were intended to do. Those
submitting this argument are using the very cornerstones of
justice and fairness in our democracy to deny equal treatment
to one group of indigenous people.
The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act is
consistent with this country's longstanding commitment to
preserving the right of indigenous people to continue to
exist as peoples. Passage of the bill is a matter of
fundamental fairness and will rectify an injustice that has
existed for far too long. Its enactment will set Native
Hawaiians on the path toward self-determination and self-
governance, as is their inherent right. I urge you to support
H.R. 505. Please contact myself or Virginia Davis,
vdavis@ncai.org or 202-466-7767 with any questions. As
always, I thank you for your leadership on this important
issue.
Sincerely,
Joe Garcia,
President.
____
The National Congress of American Indians: Resolution #PHX-03-004
Title: Support Federal Legislation Calling for Recognition of the
Hawaiian Nation and Return of Land to the Hawaiian Nation
Whereas, we, the members of the National Congress of
American Indians of the United States, invoking the divine
blessing of the Creator upon our efforts and purposes, in
order to preserve for ourselves and our descendants the
inherent sovereign rights of our Indian nations, rights
secured under Indian treaties and agreements with the United
States, and all other rights and benefits to which we are
entitled under the laws and Constitution of the United
States, to enlighten the public toward a better understanding
of the Indian people and their way of life, to preserve
Indian cultural values, and otherwise promote the health,
safety and welfare of the Indian people, do hereby establish
and submit the following resolution; and
Whereas, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI)
was established in 1944 and is the oldest and largest
national organization of American Indian and Alaska Native
tribal governments; and
Whereas, the federal policy affords all Native Americans
and Alaska Natives the right to be self-governing within a
defined land base; and
Whereas, there is a need for self-government; and
Whereas, the NCAI at its 56th annual session adopted
Resolution #99-042, at its 57th annual session adopted
Resolution #00-032 and at it 58th annual session adopted
Resolution #SPO-01-087, all of which support the sovereign
rights of native Hawaiians and recognizes the need to develop
a true government-to-government relationship with the
Hawaiian nation; and
Whereas, NCAI also adopted the same resolution that the
Hawaiian Nation's goal is federal recognition as a sovereign
indigenous nation with inherent rights to self-determination
and self-governance.
Now therefore be it resolved, that the NCAI does hereby
support federal legislation calling for recognition of the
Hawaiian nation, a self-determined entity created by and for
native Hawaiians and their descendants in furtherance of a
true government-to-government relationship; and
Be it further resolved, that the NCAI further supports the
return of land to the Hawaiian Nation; and
Be it further resolved, that this resolution shall be the
policy of the NCAI until it is withdrawn or modified by
subsequent resolution; and that a copy of this resolution be
transmitted to the Hawaii state legislature, the Governor of
the state of Hawaii, the Hawaii congressional delegation, the
Congress of the United States of America, the Secretary of
the Department of the Interior, the Attorney General of the
United States, the Secretary of State, the President of the
United States and the Trustees of the Office of Hawaiian
Affairs; and
Be it finally resolved, that this resolution shall be the
policy of NCAI until it is withdrawn or modified by
subsequent resolution.
CERTIFICATION
The foregoing resolution was adopted at the 2003 Mid-Year
Session of the National Congress of American Indians, held at
the Sheraton Wild Horse Pass Gila River Indian Community, in
Phoenix, Arizona on June 18, 2003 with a quorum present.
Tex Hall,
President.
Attest: Juana Majel.
Adopted by the General Assembly during the 2003 Mid-Year
Session of the National Congress of American Indians, held at
the Sheraton Wild Horse Pass Gila River Indian Community, in
Phoenix, Arizona on June 18, 2003.
____
Executive Chambers,
Honolulu, Hawaii, October 23, 2007.
Re H.R. 505--Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of
2007.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House, Canon House Office Building, Washington
DC.
Hon. John A. Boehner,
House Minority Leader, Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Pelosi and House Minority Leader Boehner: I am
writing to you to express my very strong and unqualified
support for the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act
of 2007, H.R. 505, often referred to as the ``Akaka Bill.''
Enactment of this important bill is just and fair and will
help to preserve the language, identity, and culture of
Native Hawaiians.
I am very pleased that the bill will likely be considered
this week on the House floor, as this bill has the bipartisan
support of almost every elected official in Hawaii, the
strong support of Hawaii's business community, and most
importantly, the strong support of Hawaii's people.
H.R. 505 would afford Native Hawaiians a long overdue
measure of justice by providing them with the means to
reorganize a formal self-governing entity. That entity would
allow them to regain a portion of the self-determination
taken from them over a century ago. This country's other
native peoples, including American Indians and Alaska
Natives, have been allowed to exercise some form of self-
governance for decades. Native Hawaiians, therefore, are not
asking for ``preferential'' status, but rather the same
treatment all other of America's native peoples have
received.
The bill does not create ``racial'' distinctions, but
rather affords participation in the Native Hawaiian Governing
Entity to those who are descendants of the indigenous people
of the Hawaiian Islands, a criterion Congress has long
characterized as being non-racial. Indeed, Congress has
already recognized Native Hawaiians to a large degree, by
repeatedly singling out Native Hawaiians for special
treatment, by acknowledging a ``special relationship'' with
Native Hawaiians, and by stating that ``the political status
of Native Hawaiians is comparable to that of American
Indians.'' This bill formalizes that status by providing
Native Hawaiians with an actual limited self-governing
entity.
H.R. 505 is surely constitutional, as the United States
Supreme Court has consistently upheld the special status of
indigenous peoples and defers to Congress's near plenary
authority to decide which native peoples to recognize.
I began this letter by stating my unqualified support for
H.R. 505. I conclude by respectfully asking for you to
support this important measure as well. I thank you in
advance for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Linda Lingle,
Governor.
[[Page H11969]]
____
American Bar Association,
Governmental Affairs Office,
Washington, DC, October 23, 2007.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Bar
Association, I urge your support for the Native Hawaiian
Government Reorganization Act of 2007, H.R. 505, introduced
by Representative Neil Abercrombie (D-HI).
The ABA, as the national voice of the legal profession, has
a long standing interest in the legal issues concerning
America's native and indigenous peoples. Over the past twenty
years, our House of Delegates has adopted numerous policies
supporting self-determination and self-governance for
American Indians and Alaska Natives. In 2006, we adopted
policy supporting the right of Native Hawaiians to seek
federal recognition of a native governing entity within the
United States similar to that which American Indians and
Alaska Natives possess under the Constitution.
The ABA supports H.R. 505. It is a conservative measure
drafted to provide an ordered process that would lead to
renewed self-determination for the Native Hawaiians. The goal
is the creation of a political entity within U.S. borders
developed by the indigenous Hawaiian people to serve,
maintain and support their unique cultural and civic needs,
including advocacy on their behalf on the federal and state
level.
This would represent a return to self-determination for the
Hawaiian people and a renewal of federal support for their
unique history. For 1,000 years prior to the overthrow of the
Hawaiian monarchy, the people who we now know as the Native
Hawaiians lived under an organized political framework
governed by the rule of law. This kingdom had a written
constitution and was recognized by the U.S. Government as a
sovereign nation. Congress ratified treaty agreements with it
and recognized its representatives.
In 1893, U.S. agents acting without official sanction
orchestrated a coup against this sovereign state and
overthrew Hawaii's last queen. Acknowledging this crime and
the continuing effect it had on Queen Liliuokalani's
subjects, Congress chose to intercede by taking a managerial
posture towards the kingdom's assets and accepting a
fiduciary duty to the Native Hawaiians and their progeny.
This was the beginning of a unique relationship between
Congress and the Hawaiian people. In 1993, the destruction
of the Hawaiian nation's last government was acknowledged
with regret in U.S. law (Public Law 103-150, also known as
the Apology Resolution). H.R. 505 would allow the Hawaiian
people the right to govern their own destiny by replacing
the Congressional mandate with Native Hawaiian governance
within the state of Hawaii.
Opponents of this legislation claim that allowing Native
Hawaiians the right to self governance would imperil the
constitutional rights of non-Native Hawaiians to equal
protection under the law. They point to the former Kingdom's
wealth and claim that self-determination will create a system
of benefits disadvantaging those who are not of Native
Hawaiian heritage. However, Native Hawaiians, in seeking
rights and privileges that other indigenous people of the
United States enjoy under our system of law, are not
compromising the rights of others but exercising their own
rights to property, to self-determination and to be
recognized as an indigenous people by Congress.
The right of Native Hawaiians to use of the property held
in trust for them and the right to govern those assets is not
in conflict with the Equal Protection Clause since it rests
on independent constitutional authority regarding the rights
of native nations contained within the text of Articles I and
II of the Constitution. The constitutional framers recognized
the existence of native nations within the United States that
predated our own democracy and created a system for federal
recognition of indigenous nations within our then expanding
borders. The framers empowered Congress through the Indian
Commerce Clause and the Treaty Clause to maintain relations
between the U.S. federal government and the governments of
these native nations. Our courts have upheld Congress' power
to recognize indigenous nations and have specifically
recognized that this power includes the power to re-recognize
nations whose recognition has been compromised in the
historical past. Thus, the Native Hawaiians have the right to
be recognized by this body, this right is not in conflict
with the rights of others, and this recognition may be
renewed despite historical lapses.
I urge you to support the rights of Native Hawaiians to
self-determination by voting for H.R. 505 and against any
weakening amendments.
Sincerely,
Denise A. Cardman,
Acting Director.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend,
the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this act. Having
great familiarity with the peoples of the Hawaiian Islands and with
Native Hawaiians, I understand their concerns that we should have
codified a stronger statement of what their rights are as indigenous
peoples.
This is really about making sure that language and culture and
history are preserved. It also is consistent with the law which created
the admission of Hawaii to this Union. I think the date, Mr.
Abercrombie could correct me if I am wrong, it was August 21, 1959.
That was an important date for this Nation, because it is a day that we
embraced not only Hawaii but Alaska. It was a day that we embraced the
potential of this country to extend its reach and embrace peoples of
many different cultures.
This act is an act that needs to be passed so that we can keep
unfolding the real purpose and quality of America.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time,
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time
to yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Hawaii (Mr.
Abercrombie), the sponsor who has labored with this legislation
actively in several Congresses, who is from the Committee on Natural
Resources, and the author of this bill.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as this is a discussion on the
rule and not necessarily on the bill itself, I would like to confine my
remarks, at least in this initial phase of dealing with the issue, on
some of the points raised by my good friend and colleague Mr. Hastings.
I am appreciative of the points that he raised, because I think they
are in need of not so much refutation but perhaps clarification.
It is easy to understand why those who are not necessarily familiar,
and I am not speaking about Mr. Hastings personally, I am talking about
the references that he cited in his commentary, it is easy to
understand why people who are not familiar with a little bit of the
history of Hawaii could come to some of the conclusions or make some of
the observations that they have. Absent the context within which this
bill is coming forward, it is understandable. That context then is what
I want to establish, so that it becomes clear.
I certainly don't want to get in an argument with the editorial board
of the Wall Street Journal either, and they are making some quotations
there about complete territorial independence.
Well, I think what is being referred to there, and what the
likelihood of the reference is, is that there was in fact not
territorial in the sense of annexation of territory, like the
Philippines or Hawaii or Puerto Rico or that kind of thing that
occurred during the kind of ``imperial phase'' of the United States,
but there was in fact territorial independence, because Hawaii was a
kingdom. It is one of the things that kind of gets lost in the shuffle,
and that is one of the reasons we are here today, Mr. Speaker.
The United States of America has in fact had, over a 175-year period
leading up to the overthrow of the kingdom in 1893, a series of
treaties and conventions; 1826, 1842, 1849, 1875, 1887, dealing with
commerce, dealing with trade, dealing with various recognitions. The
Kingdom of Hawaii had treaties and conventions with other nations, as
well as the United States.
So as a result of that history, we have a succession of land claims
and assets that have come from the time of the kingdom to the shotgun
republic that occurred after the overthrow of the kingdom and the
annexation of the United States into the territory, and into finally
becoming a State, as was indicated, in 1959. We are in fact the last
State to enter the Union, along with Alaska in 1959.
I bring this up simply to point out that far from subdividing the
American people, as was cited by my good friend, quite the contrary; it
incorporates the politics as well as the historical reality of this
land secession and the assets associated with it, because this land
generates income.
Basically what this is about, Mr. Speaker, is land and other assets,
including money, and who controls it. When this land came in, it wasn't
worth anything. The Wall Street Journal did not comment, I am certain,
on the ceded lands. They are called ``ceded lands'' because they were
ceded from the kingdom to the succeeding governmental entities. They
could care less,
[[Page H11970]]
the Wall Street Journal, about these lands when they were worth
nothing, when they were not seen to be able to be marketed.
But let me explain now, and I ask my good friend as I look at him now
with a smile on my face, we are talking about land in Hawaii? You are
talking big bucks. You are talking money here. That is what this is
about is land and money and who controls it. And this land has, from
the time of the kingdom, resided with the Native Hawaiians. That is who
is to be the beneficiary.
That takes me to the point, Mr. Speaker, of the entry into the Union.
The Admissions Act requires us, requires us, the Admissions Act of 1959
requires us to utilize those lands and assets for the benefit of Native
Hawaiians. That is in the Admissions Act.
{time} 1230
We are not here on the floor today because we didn't have anything
better to do in Hawaii than to try to bring this to the Federal
Government. On the contrary, the Admissions Act requires us to make
certain that these lands are utilized for the benefit of Native
Hawaiians. The reason we have the bill here is that in order to
accomplish that, we need to get a governing entity that can come to the
Department of the Interior for approval in order to be able to conduct
the affairs, similarly to, parallel to what now happens with Native
Americans in the so-called lower 48 in the mainland of the United
States and with various Alaska Natives and corporations and other
entities that have been set up in Alaska.
This is a history of indigenous people. They are different from other
indigenous people because they were a kingdom, and we would not have
the 2 million acres we are talking about had those acres not been
associated with an indigenous people. They are not imaginary, they are
real.
Finally, let me say with Rice v. Cayetano, Governor Cayetano, the
first Filipino American to be elected Governor, that issue was settled
on a question of voting procedures and had nothing whatsoever to do
with programs for Native Hawaiians.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
I appreciate my friend from Hawaii's clarification on this, and I
just want to point out a couple of things in my opening remarks.
I emphasized that this is a process which I think acknowledges the
fact that there is a history that goes back to when Hawaii was a
kingdom, and so I acknowledge that point. But I simply raise those
issues because those issues I think are important when we talk about
the United States as a whole, as a government under laws and everybody
being treated equal, and these are questions that I think need to be
addressed.
I appreciate very, very much my friend's clarification on this. The
point that this is a process and the point that there is some lineage
going back from a State to a territory to a kingdom probably has some
viability to it.
But there are always unintended laws when we write national laws that
appeal to one State or one set of people. That is what we have to be
cautious about. That is why I simply raise these concerns. The issue is
before us. We have a rule and we have made in order an amendment that
deals with the 14th amendment. I think that is important to be
discussed, and I doubt if this issue will be completely decided here
today.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I am the last speaker, and I will reserve my
time until the gentleman closes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question
so that I may amend the rule to have Speaker Pelosi, in consultation
with Republican Leader Boehner, immediately appoint conferees to H.R.
2642, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act
for 2008.
Two days ago a number of news publications, including Roll Call,
reported that the Democrat leadership intends to play political games
and hold off on sending any appropriations bills to President Bush so
that they can use an upcoming anticipated veto of the Labor-HHS
appropriations bill to serve as ``an extension of their successful
public relations campaign on the State Children's Health Insurance
Program.'' Roll Call is the one that made that observation on October
22, 2007.
While the House Democrat leadership plays politics on this issue,
however, our Nation's veterans are paying the price. The Senate has
already done its work and appointed conferees for this bill. And for
every day that House Democrats allow the veterans funding bill to
languish without conferees for their only political advantage, our
Nation's veterans lose $18.5 million, money that could be used for
veterans housing, veterans health care, and other important veterans
support activities.
On October 18, American Legion National Commander Marty Conaster,
five national vice commanders and all 55 Legion national executive
committee members sent Speaker Pelosi a letter pleading with her to put
partisanship aside and provide this funding for the troops.
Mr. Speaker, I include a copy of the letter for the Congressional
Record.
The American Legion,
Indianapolis, IN, October 18, 2007.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Pelosi: Today ends the Fall meeting of The
American Legion's National Executive Committee, at The
American Legion's National Headquarters in Indianapolis,
Indiana. The National Executive Committee consists of an
elected leader from each of The American Legion's 55
Departments (50 States, the District of Columbia and four
foreign countries). In accordance with The American Legion's
National Constitution and By-laws, the National Executive
Committee serves as The American Legion's governing body.
The National Commander Marty Conatser briefed The National
Executive Committee on an array of issues to include the
status of the VA budget for FY 2008. The fiscal activities of
the 110th Congress--the FY 2007 Continuing Resolution, the
Budget Resolution for FY 2008, and the passage of the
Military Construction, Veterans' Affairs and Related Agencies
Appropriations for FY 2008 were reviewed.
However, in trying to grasp why such a bipartisan bill,
which passed overwhelmingly in both chambers, still hasn't
moved in over a month is rather difficult, especially since
the President has already said he would not veto the bill,
even though it exceeds his recommendations. Understanding why
the appropriations process has come to a complete halt is
difficult. What is preventing the appointment of conferees,
the Conference Committee, or passage of a Conference Report?
We are now in the new fiscal year with no idea when the Mil
Con-VA appropriations will be passed. If history repeats
itself, this standoff may last well into the second quarter
of the fiscal year. This uncertainty is disturbing to not
only The American Legion and other veterans' and military
service organizations, but to every veteran who is dependent
on VA for timely access to quality health care, earned
benefits, and other services provided by a grateful nation.
Madam Speaker, the newest generation of wartime veterans
are reporting to VA medical facilities every day as troops
are returning from deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. Some
will be determined to be service-connected disabled because
of medical conditions incurred or aggravated while on active-
duty. Others may very well have invisible scars that need
attention as soon as possible. As VA welcomes new patients,
the existing patient population cannot be ignored nor should
their health care be rationed due to limited available
resources. There are veterans dependent on VA as their life-
support system.
The American Legion represents 2.6 million wartime
veterans, but also speaks for the 24 million veterans of the
United States Armed Forces and their families.
Please continue the appropriations process--name conferees,
convene the Conference Committee, and pass the Conference
Report.
Sincerely,
Marty Conatser, National Commander; Thomas L. Burns, Jr.
(DE), National Vice Commander; Randall A. Fisher (KY),
National Vice Commander; David A. Korth (WI), National
Vice Commander; James L. Van Horn (AK), National
Executive Committeeman; Ross Rogers (AK), National
Executive Committeeman; Peggy G. Dettori (AK), National
Vice Commander; Donald Hayden (MN), National Vice
Commander; Floyd W. Turner (AL), National Executive
Committeeman; Julius Maklary (AZ), National Executive
Committeeman; James W. Hackney (CA), National Executive
Committeeman.
Jeff Luginbuel (CO), National Executive Committeeman;
John J. Jackson (DE), National Executive Committeeman;
Robert J. Proctor (FL), National Executive
Committeeman; Ray Hendrix (GA), National Executive
Committeeman; Cleve Rice (ID), National Executive
Committeeman; W. Darrell Hansel
[[Page H11971]]
(IN), National Executive Committeeman; David O. Warnken
(KS), National Executive Committeeman; Charles D.
Aucoin (LA), National Executive Committeeman; Dr.
Gordon B. Browning (MD), National Executive
Committeeman; Richard W. Anderson (CT), National
Executive Committeeman; Paul H. ___, for Walter W.
Norris (DC), National Executive Committeeman; William
E. Marshall (France), National Executive Committeeman;
Andrew W. Johnson (HI), National Executive
Committeeman; Kenneth J. Trumbull (IL), National
Executive Committeeman; Michael E. Wanser (IA),
National Executive Committeeman; Randall Coffman (KY),
National Executive Committeeman; Robert A. Owen (ME),
National Executive Committeeman; James F. Army (MA),
National Executive Committeeman.
John E. Hayes (Mexico), National Executive Committeeman;
Virgil V. Persing (MN), National Executive
Committeeman; David N. Voyles (MO), National Executive
Committeeman; Michael J. Landkamer (NE), National
Executive Committeeman; John E. Neylon (NH), National
Executive Committeeman; Bruce Jorgensen (NM), National
Executive Committeeman; Jerry L. Hedrick (NC), National
Executive Committeeman; Carl W. Swisher (OH), National
Executive Committeeman; Charles E. Schmidt (OR),
National Executive Committeeman; Gerald N. Dennis (MI),
National Executive Committeeman; Charles E. Langley
(MS), National Executive Committeeman; Bob O. Beals
(MT), National Executive Committeeman; Ron Gutzman
(NV), National Executive Committeeman; William A.
Rakestraw, Jr. (NJ), National Executive Committeeman;
Paul Mitras (NY), National Executive Committeeman;
Curtis O. Twete (ND), National Executive Committeeman;
Bobby J. Longenbaugh (OK), National Executive
Committeeman; Alfred Pirolli (PA), National Executive
Committeeman.
William J. Kelly (Philippines), National Executive
Committeeman; Ernest Gerundio (RI), National Executive
Committeeman; Paul A. Evenson (SD), National Executive
Committeeman; Ronald G. Cherry (TX), National Executive
Committeeman; Leslie V. Howe (VT), National Executive
Committeeman; William F. Schrier (WA), National
Executive Committeeman; Arthur D. Herbison (WI),
National Executive Committeeman; Carlos Orria-Medina
(PR), National Executive Committeeman; Billy W. Bell
(SC), National Executive Committeeman; Jennings B.
Loring (TN), National Executive Committeeman; William
E. Christoffersen (UT), National Executive
Committeeman; Rob R. Gordon, Jr. (VA), National
Executive Committeeman; William W. Kile (WV), National
Executive Committeeman; ------ ------, for Irvin A.
Quick (WY), National Executive Committeeman.
Mr. Speaker, on that same day, the commander in chief of the Veterans
of Foreign Wars, General Lisicki, also urged Speaker Pelosi and the
Democrat leadership to put partisanship aside for the benefit of our
Nation's veterans and troops. These pleas from the American Legion and
the VFW fall on the heels of multiple requests from Republican Members
of this House to both Speaker Pelosi and Democrat Majority Leader
Senator Reid, urging them to end their PR campaign and begin conference
work on the Veterans appropriations bill.
Unfortunately, it appears as though all of these commonsense requests
have fallen on deaf ears and our Nation's veterans are being forced to
pay the price for continued Democrat partisanship and lack of
leadership on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Congressional Record these two letters
so everyone watching today's debate across the country can see the
efforts that have been made by the Republican Party to end this impasse
on the important issue of providing adequate funding for those who have
sacrificed so much on behalf of the country.
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, September 17, 2007.
Office of the Speaker,
U.S. Capitol,
Washington, DC.
Madam Speaker: We write to urge you in the strongest
possible terms to reach a prompt agreement on the conference
report on the FY2008 Military Construction and Veterans
Affairs Appropriations Act (H.R. 2642). Few issues are more
important than adequate funding for our Nation's veterans.
The leadership in the House cannot allow this critically
important funding to fall victim to the usual partisan
wrangling which occurs all too often in Washington.
Veterans should not be used as tools for political
bargaining and gamesmanship. Both the House and Senate passed
the FY08 MilCon-Veterans appropriations with overwhelming
majorities because our commitment to veterans rises above
partisan squabbling. Tragedies such as the recent revelations
at Walter Reed Army Medical Center must never be repeated.
The findings of insufficient care at Walter Reed and other
facilities should be seen by Congress as a mandate to finish
the work and live up to the promises we have made to our
veterans.
After decades of flat funding, total VA budget rose from
$48 billion in FY 2001 to approximately $70 billion in FY
2006, a 46 percent increase. This year, the House voted to
increase funding by $6 billion over FY07, one of the largest
in the 77 year history of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Both the Senate and House versions received overwhelming
majority support passing by a vote of 409-2 in the House and
92-1 in the Senate.
Earlier in the year, the new Majority agreed they would
continue the trend of significant increases in veterans
funding begun by the Republican Congress. We ask you to honor
that agreement and see that the commitment we made to our
veterans is honored.
We must never forget the sacrifice of our veterans. As
members of Congress, we have a solemn obligation to fulfill
our promises to them. We ask for you to look past the
heightened partisanship of our times and unite us on this
issue by making it a first priority to quickly bring a stand
alone Veterans appropriations bill through conference so the
Congress may present the President with a bill by October 1,
2007.
We stand ready to assist you in reaching this goal.
Sincerely,
Stevan Pearce; Steve Buyer; Don Young; Greg Walden;
Marilyn N. Musgrave; Ron Lewis; Jim Saxton; ------;
Thomas Price; Tim Walberg; Mary Fallin; John Kline;
Ginny Brown-Waite; David Obey; Tom Tancredo; John L.
Mica; Mark Souder; Louie Gohmert; Rick Renzi; Mario
Diaz-Balart; Jean Schmidt; Gus M. Bilirakis; Adrian
Smith; Pete Sessions; Paul Ryan; Dana Rohrabacher;
Spencer Bachus; K. Michael Conaway; Tom Feeney; J.
Randy Forbes; Jon C. Porter; John Shimkus; Jim Gerlach;
Mike Ferguson; Mary Bono; Dean Heller; Jeff Miller; Sue
Myrick; Geoff Davis; Thelma Drake; Steve King; Jeb
Hensarling; Barbara Cubin; Scott Garrett.
____
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, October 4, 2007.
Office of the Senate Majority Leader,
U.S. Capitol,
Washington, DC.
Dear Majority Leader Reid: We write today to ask you to
keep the Senate in session the week of October 8, to help
pass this years' veterans appropriations. Now that we are
already into the new fiscal year, it is imperative that the
House and Senate reach a prompt agreement on the conference
report on the FY2008 Military Construction and Veterans
Affairs Appropriations Act (H.R. 2642).
It is unfortunate the Senate has been unable to act upon
many of its Constitutionally mandated appropriations bills.
While the House continues to wait upon the Senate to complete
its work, we call upon you to quickly move veterans
appropriations through conference so a final version of the
bill may be passed and presented to the President. We believe
that veterans issues rise above the partisan divisions of
Washington which is evident by the passage of the FY08
MilCon-Veterans appropriations with overwhelming majorities
in both Houses, 501-3 combined.
The Senate cannot allow this critically important funding
to continue to fall victim to the usual partisan wrangling
which occurs all too often in Washington. If tragedies such
as the recent revelations at Walter Reed Army Medical Center
are to be diverted in the future, we must pass veterans
funding now. From FY 2001 the total VA budget rose from $48
billion to approximately $70 billion in FY 2006, a 46 percent
increase. This year, the House voted to increase funding by
$6 billion dollars over FY07, one of the largest in the 77
year history of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Because
we have asked so much of our brave men and women in uniform
during the War on Terror we must uphold our commitment to
veterans upon their return home.
Earlier in the year, the new Majority agreed they would
continue the trend of significant increases in veterans
funding begun by the Republican Congress. We ask you to honor
that agreement and see the commitment we made to our veterans
is upheld.
We must never forget the sacrifice of our veterans. As
members of Congress, we have a solemn obligation to fulfill
our promises to them. We ask you to look past the heightened
partisanship of our times and unite us on this issue by
making it a first priority to bring a stand-alone veterans
appropriations bill through conference so the Congress may
present the President with a bill no later than October 12,
2007.
Sincerely,
Stevan Pearce; Duncan Hunter; Don Young; Jim
Sensenbrenner; Wally Herger; Jim Saxton; John Kline;
Geoff Davis; Tom Tancredo; Louie Gohmert; Ginny Brown-
Waite; Doug Lamborn; Darrell Issa; John T. Doolittle;
Lincoln Diaz-Balart; Jeff Miller; Scott Garrett; Paul
Ryan; Adrian Smith; K. Michael Conaway; Michele
Bachmann; Tim Welberg; Jean Schmidt; Dan Burton; Phil
English; Randy Kuhl; Greg Walden; Jo Ann Davis; Jim
Moran; Thomas Price; John R. Carter; Tom Feeney;
[[Page H11972]]
Phil Gingrey; Vito Fossella; Gary G. Miller; Jim
Gerlach; Jeb Hensarling; Pete Sessions; Mark Souder;
Randy Neugebauer; John E. Peterson; Trent Franks; Gus
M. Bilirakis; Wayne T. Gilchrest; Timothy H. Bishop;
Michael T. McCaul; Thelma Drake.
I ask all of my colleagues to vote against the previous question so
we can put partisanship aside and move this important legislation
forward.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the
amendment and extraneous material appear in the Record just prior to
the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. With that, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this bill is about the right to
live. It is about empowering Native Hawaiians to own their destiny and
choose how to manage their livelihood. This bill is not about gaming.
In fact, it expressly is prohibited in this bill.
Instead, the bill is about providing an opportunity to effectively
reorganize the Native Hawaiian government to better meet the needs of
Native Hawaiians.
The underlying legislation enjoys the support of Hawaii's Republican
Governor Linda Lingle, the business community in Hawaii, the National
Congress of American Indians, the Alaska Federation of Natives, and
Hawaii's entire congressional delegation.
Mr. Speaker, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act has
received immense bipartisan support year after year. It is now time
that we fulfill the duty of this Congress and serve Native Hawaiians
just as they have served and contributed to the vibrant and diverse
culture that is America.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule, the previous question, and on
final passage of the bill.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is
as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 764 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 3. The House disagrees to the Senate amendment to the
bill, H.R. 2642, making appropriations for military
construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and
for other purposes, and agrees to the conference requested by
the Senate thereon. The Speaker shall appoint conferees
immediately, but may declare a recess under clause 12(a) of
rule I for the purpose of consulting the Minority Leader
prior to such appointment. The motion to instruct conferees
otherwise in order pending the appointment of conferees
instead shall be in order only at a time designated by the
Speaker in the legislative schedule within two additional
legislative days after adoption of this resolution.
____
(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution--[and] has no substantive legislative
or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what
they have always said. Listen to the definition of the
previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218,
nays 175, not voting 39, as follows:
[Roll No. 997]
YEAS--218
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pearce
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
[[Page H11973]]
NAYS--175
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Dent
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--39
Barton (TX)
Bilbray
Blackburn
Bono
Buyer
Carson
Cooper
Culberson
Davis (CA)
Davis, Tom
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Forbes
Garrett (NJ)
Giffords
Hastert
Holt
Hunter
Issa
Jindal
Johnson, E. B.
Kirk
Lamborn
Lewis (CA)
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
McCotter
Payne
Peterson (PA)
Reyes
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Shea-Porter
Smith (NJ)
Wasserman Schultz
Wilson (OH)
Wynn
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1301
Mr. BUCHANAN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Ms. VELAZQUEZ changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 217,
noes 179, not voting 36, as follows:
[Roll No. 998]
AYES--217
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOES--179
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Dent
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--36
Barton (TX)
Bilbray
Blackburn
Buyer
Carson
Cooper
Culberson
Davis (CA)
Davis, Tom
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Forbes
Garrett (NJ)
Giffords
Hastert
Hunter
Issa
Jindal
Johnson, E. B.
Kirk
Lewis (CA)
Mahoney (FL)
McCotter
Payne
Peterson (PA)
Reyes
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Shea-Porter
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Wasserman Schultz
Wilson (OH)
Wynn
Young (AK)
{time} 1311
Mr. SHAYS and Mr. HERGER changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________