Western Hemisphere Drug Policy Commission Act of 2009

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2009. This important piece of legislation is to reaffirm the special political and legal relationship between the United States and the indigenous Native Hawaiians for purposes of continuing a government-to-government relationship.

I certainly want to thank Chairman Nick Rahall and the members of our Natural Resources Committee for their support. I especially want to thank and recognize my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from the State of Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) for his leadership and tireless efforts in bringing this legislation to the floor for consideration.

For some 20 years I have had the privilege and honor of working closely with Mr. Abercrombie on legislation that have benefited not only my constituents, but certainly the great State of Hawaii. I also want to thank my colleague and my dear friend, Ms. Hirono, and other Members for cosponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us is very important for many reasons, but none more critically important than for Congress to extend proper and appropriate recognition for some 400,000 indigenous Native Hawaiians in the State of Hawaii and those living outside of Hawaii. Constitutionally, Congress has the authority to address the conditions of the native people of the United States. And the indigenous people of the Hawaiian Islands are a distinctively native community that for many years existed as a sovereign entity.

History shows us from 1826 until 1893, the United States Government recognized the Kingdom of Hawaii as a sovereign and independent nation. It was accorded full diplomatic recognition. The kingdom entered into treaties and conventions of peace, friendship, and commerce with the Kingdom of Hawaii, governing trade, commerce, and even navigation in the years 1826, 1842, 1849, 1875, 1887. Mr. Speaker, yes, even our government, the United States of America, was party to these treaties and conventions with the sovereign Kingdom of Hawaii.

Mr. Speaker, more than 100 years ago ambitious descendants of U.S. missionaries and sugar planters, aided by an unauthorized and illegal use of U.S. military forces, overthrew the sovereign Kingdom of Hawaii, which at that time was ruled by Queen Lili'uokalani. In 1993, Congress reaffirmed such a travesty on the Kingdom of Hawaii when they passed a joint resolution to acknowledge and apologize on behalf of the United States for the illegal and unlawful overthrow of the Hawaiian kingdom in 1893, and for the deprivation of the rights and privileges of the indigenous Native Hawaiians to self-determination.

To this day, Mr. Speaker, the status of indigenous Native Hawaiians was never properly addressed by the United States Congress. And it is within Congress's constitutional authority to do so. Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court decisions properly determined that American Indians of the lower 48 States are an indigenous people. In fact, recognition of the Native Alaskans as indigenous people of the U.S. demonstrates this constitutional authority. And even the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized this constitutional authority and has accepted a broader conceptualization of indigenous peoples, allowing Congress to recognize indigenous groups, even those who are culturally and genealogically distinct from the narrow concept of being an Indian or as a tribe.

In the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1921, Congress expressed and reaffirmed the special and trust relationship between the United States and the

Native Hawaiians. In addition, the act also recognized the Native Hawaiians as a distinct and unique indigenous people. Native Hawaiians are in fact indigenous, aboriginal people living within what is now the borders of the United States and those living in the State of Hawaii, and it is unfortunate that even today the status of some 400,000 indigenous Native Hawaiians have yet to be afforded the same recognition as our first Americans.

Mr. Speaker, over the years the treatment of indigenous Native Hawaiians by the U.S. Government has been piecemeal at best. There is estimated over 150 laws that have been passed by the Congress related to the social, educational, economic, and cultural needs of the indigenous Native Hawaiians. This proposed bill sets the institutional framework for the establishment of a relationship between the United States and the indigenous Native Hawaiians, just as Congress has done for the indigenous American Indians and indigenous Native Alaskans.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, there are only three distinct indigenous groups under the U.S. sovereignty: American Indians within the continental United States, Native Alaskans, and Native Hawaiians.

Mr. Speaker, the bill we have before us today will continue the long but necessary road towards full recognition by the Congress of the rights of the indigenous Native Hawaiians.

The underlying issue in this piece of legislation is not about the existence of Native Hawaiians. That much has been already determined. This bill is to establish a process giving the indigenous Native Hawaiians the same status that we have done for the indigenous American Indians and the indigenous Native Alaskans. Nothing to do with race. It is about giving proper recognition, and also as a moral imperative on the part of our government, give proper recognition to the Native Hawaiians. They deserve this. They are not begging for anything. Just give them proper recognition. I ask my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the ``Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2009.'' This important piece of legislation is to reaffirm the special political and legal relationship between the United States and the indigenous Native Hawaiians for purposes of continuing a government-to-government relationship. I want to thank Chairman Nick Rahall and members of the Committee on Natural Resources for their support. I especially want to commend and recognize my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Hawaii, Mr. Abercrombie, for his leadership and tireless efforts in bringing this legislation to the floor for consideration. For some 20 years, I've had the privilege of working closely with Mr. Abercrombie on legislation that has benefited both constituents and the great State of Hawaii. I also want to commend my good friend, Ms. Hirono, and other Members for their cosponsoring this legislation.

The legislation before us is very important for many reasons, but none more critical than for Congress to extend full recognition to some 400,000 indigenous Native Hawaiians in the State of Hawaii. Constitutionally, Congress has the authority to address the conditions of the native people of the United States and the indigenous people of the Hawaiian Islands are a distinctly native community that for many years existed as a sovereign entity. History shows that from 1826 until 1893, the United States government recognized the Kingdom of Hawaii as a sovereign and independent nation; accorded full diplomatic recognition to the Kingdom of Hawaii; and entered into treaties and conventions of peace, friendship and commerce with the Kingdom of Hawaii to govern trade, commerce, and navigation in 1826, 1842, 1849, 1875 and 1887. Yes, even our government, the United States of America was a party to these treaties and conventions with the Sovereign Kingdom of Hawaii.

Mr. Speaker, more than 100 years ago, ambitious descendants of U.S. missionaries and sugar planters, aided by the unauthorized and illegal use of U.S. military forces, overthrew the sovereign Kingdom of Hawaii which at that time was ruled by Queen Lili'uokalani. In 1993, Congress reaffirmed such a travesty on the Kingdom of Hawaii when they passed a joint resolution to acknowledge and apologize on behalf of the United States for the illegal and unlawful overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893, and for the deprivation of the rights of the indigenous Native Hawaiians to self-determination.

To this day, the status of the indigenous Native Hawaiians was never properly addressed by the United States Congress. And it is within Congress' constitutional authority to do so. Congress and U.S. Supreme Court decisions have properly determined that American Indians of the lower 48 States are an indigenous people. In fact, recognition of the Native Alaskans as indigenous people of the U.S. demonstrates this constitutional power. And even the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized this constitutional authority and has accepted a broader conceptualization of indigenous people, allowing Congress to recognize indigenous groups, even those who are culturally and genealogically distinct from the narrow concept of being an ``Indian'' and ``tribe.''

In 1971, Congress enacted the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), adopting special legislation to deal with Native Alaskans' land claims and creating a governing structure (corporations) through which to manage the federal relationship with the indigenous group even though the Alaska Natives differed culturally, historically, and genealogically from American Indians. In the ANCSA, ``Native'' in defined to mean ``a citizen of the U.S. who is a person of one-fourth degree or more Alaska Indian, Eskimo, Aleut blood, or combination thereof'' and ``Native Group'' to mean ``any tribe, band, clan, village, community, or village of Natives in Alaska.'' The indigenous Native Hawaiians also meet these definitions.

In the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1921, Congress expressed and reaffirmed the ``special'' and ``trust'' relationship between the United States and the Native Hawaiians. In addition, the Act also recognized Native Hawaiians as ``a distinct and unique indigenous people.'' Native Hawaiians are, in fact, indigenous, aboriginal people living within what are now the borders of the U.S. and it is unfortunate that even today the status of some 400,000 indigenous Native Hawaiians have yet to be afforded this same recognition as our First Americans.

Although Rice vs. Cayetano has no bearing on this legislation, I should note that the Supreme Court's decision states, ``Congress . . . has determined that native Hawaiians have a status like that of organized Indian tribes.'' Even the author of the State's brief, now Chief Justice John Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court, clearly explained that the Congress has plenary authority that is not limited to only American Indians by stating the following:

Congress is constitutionally empowered to deal with

Hawaiians, has recognized such a ``special relationship,''

and--``in recognition of that special relationship''--``has

extended to Native Hawaiians the same rights and privileges

accorded to American Indian, Alaska Native, Eskimo, and Aleut

communities.'' Congress has established with Hawaiians the

same type of ``unique legal relationship'' that exists with

respect to the Indian tribes who enjoy the ``same rights and

privileges'' accorded Hawaiians under these laws.

Over the years, the treatment of indigenous Native Hawaiians by the U.S. government has been piecemeal at best. There is estimated over 160 laws that have been passed by the Congress related to the social, educational, economic, and cultural needs of the indigenous Native Hawaiians. This proposed bill sets the institutional framework for the establishment of a relationship between the U.S. and the indigenous Native Hawaiians just as Congress has done for the indigenous American Indians and indigenous Native Alaskans. I submit, there are only three, district indigenous peoples, under U.S. sovereignity--American Indians within the continental United States, Native Alaskans and Native Hawaiians.

Mr. Speaker, the proposed bill that we have before us today will continue the long but necessary road towards full recognition by Congress of the indigenous Native Hawaiians. The underlying issue in this piece of legislation is not about the existence of the Native Hawaiians. That much has already been determined. This bill however is to establish a process by giving the indigenous Native Hawaiians the same status as we have done for the indigenous American Indians and the indigenous Native Alaskans.

I respectfully urge my fellow colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2314 and the substitute text that will be offered by my good friend from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).

Mr. Speaker, at the outset of this debate, it is important for all Members to understand that the substitute text that they will ultimately be voting on today is fundamentally changed from the original underlying bill that the House voted on in 2007. This rewritten text, the Abercrombie substitute, was drafted behind closed doors away from public view. It was unveiled less than 48 hours before we in the House were to be debating and voting on that substitute. Regrettably, Mr. Speaker, this lack of transparency has become the standard operating procedure for this Democratic-controlled House.

Mr. Speaker, I am certain we will hear appeals from the bill's advocates that the vote on this bill should not be a partisan matter. I would agree. This is not a partisan matter; rather, it is a question of what is right and constitutional. But appeals to nonpartisanship ring hollow when the bill was rewritten in secret by just one party and then rushed to the floor with little time for scrutiny by the minority, but more importantly, Mr. Speaker, little time for scrutiny by the American people or the citizens of Hawaii.

There is nothing more troubling about the House voting on a fundamentally rewritten bill than the position made public by the Governor of Hawaii. Something is very wrong when that Governor, a longtime vocal advocate of Native Hawaiian recognition, feels compelled to issue a statement last night that she can't support this rewritten bill.

Now, the Governor and I disagree on the fundamental question of recognition, I want to make that clear, just as I fundamentally disagree with my good friend from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) but I also strongly disagree with the House acting to impose a changed bill on one of the 50 States over their Governor's objections, especially when this Governor has long supported, as I mentioned, the concept of Native Hawaiian recognition and the original text of the bill.

Let me explain the difference between the underlying bill, which is basically what the House passed in the 110th Congress, and the Abercrombie amendment in the nature of a substitute. This is very important, Mr. Speaker. The original bill extended recognition to the Native Hawaiian entity but withheld any tribal powers and privileges, such as immunity from lawsuit and State jurisdiction, until after negotiations with--and the consent of--the State of Hawaii and this Congress. Though this does not resolve my fundamental objection to the bill, it was an arrangement that drew the strong support of Governor Lingle of Hawaii.

In contrast, the substitute alters this fundamental nature of the bill. Let me quote the words that the Governor of Hawaii, Governor Linda Lingle, used to describe this rewrite: ``The current bill establishes that the Native Hawaiian governing entity would start with broad governmental powers and authorities, with negotiations to follow.'' Again, the original bill starts with negotiations, followed by a grant of powers and authorities that are subject to the consent of the State. But the substitute starts with the grant of powers and authorities without the consent of the State, followed by negotiations for yet more benefits and powers.

Let me be specific, Mr. Speaker, in two instances. First, section 9 of the substitute clearly spells out the powers granted to the Native American governing entity before negotiations without the consent of the State; it is immunity from any lawsuit in any Federal or State court, with only minor exceptions. Second, it is that ``governmental'' activities pursued by the entity or its officers and employees shall not be subject to State regulatory or taxation authority. The wording of this section suggests that the State criminal authority will not even apply to officers and employees of the Native Hawaiian governing entity as long as they are acting within the scope of their duties.

To once again quote from the Governor of Hawaii's statement from last night, ``I do not believe such a structure, of two completely different sets of rules--one for `governmental' activities of the Native Hawaiian governing entity and its officers and employees, and one for everyone else--makes sense for Hawaii.''

Quoting further, ``In addition, under the current bill, the Native Hawaiian governing entity has almost complete sovereign immunity from lawsuits, including from ordinary tort and contract lawsuits, and I do not believe this makes sense for the people of Hawaii.'' And I am quoting from Governor Lingle.

Without question, this rewritten bill strikes at the heart of the State of Hawaii's authority to enforce health and environmental regulations, taxes, and criminal law enforcement equally among its citizens. Congress should not be party to imposing this upon this State, or for that matter any State. Yet, despite the State of Hawaii's concerns with the rewritten bill, here we

are tonight debating it on the floor of the House of Representatives. This legislation violates also, in my view, the United States Constitution because it establishes a separate, race-based government of Native Hawaiians.

The authors and advocates of this bill have argued that Native Hawaiian recognition is no different than Congress recognizing an Indian tribe, and yet, Mr. Speaker, there are very important and real differences. Native Hawaiians are not and never have been members of an Indian tribe. Native Hawaiians do not share the same political and legal history as Federally recognized Indian tribes. The historical record on this point is very, very clear. For example, in the Hawaii Organic Act of 1900, section 4 states that all persons who were citizens of the Republic of Hawaii in 1898 were declared citizens of the United States and citizens of the Territory of Hawaii.

Mr. Speaker, if Congress then believed it was recognizing the existence of a separate Native Hawaiian community, the Organic Act would have expressly reflected this; instead, all Hawaiians were recognized as full citizens. Mr. Speaker, this is in stark contrast to our Nation's history of less than equal treatment of individual Indians and Indian tribes.

But try as we might, Congress cannot revise historical and political facts. H.R. 2314 attempts to do just this, to rewrite legal history. Mr. Speaker, this observation is shared by constitutional and civil rights experts. For example, in its 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court in Rice v. Cayetano commented on the proposition of Native Hawaiian recognition, saying that it, and I quote from that case, ``would raise questions of considerable moment and difficulty. It is a matter of some dispute whether Congress may treat the Native Hawaiians as it does the Indian tribes.''

Just yesterday, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights reiterated its standing opposition to any legislation, and I quote from the commission, ``that would discriminate on the basis of race or national origin and further subdivide the American people into discrete subgroups according to varying degrees of privilege.''

Mr. Speaker, in 1959 a vote was taken in Hawaii on the question of becoming a State. Over 94 percent voted in favor of statehood. In other words, citizens of Hawaii voted overwhelmingly to join our Union as one unified State.

Today, under this bill, Congress will vote on dividing the State of Hawaii through the creation of a separate governing entity based solely on race. If Congress is going to impose this division on Hawaii over the objections of its Governor, then I believe the citizens of Hawaii themselves deserve to have a vote on this matter.

In a Zogby poll from December 2009, a couple of months ago, only 34 percent of Hawaiians supported the concept of the Federal Government's imposing a new racially based subpopulation of citizens on the islands. Like their fellow Hawaiians who voted overwhelmingly for Statehood in 1959, Hawaiians today want a say in the future of their archipelago. The same poll found that 58 percent want a Statewide vote on this issue.

So, Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment that will be offered which would require just such a Statewide vote, and I hope all Members will join me in adopting that amendment.

As I noted at the outset of my remarks, the House last voted on Native Hawaiian recognition in 2007. I want to reiterate today, Mr. Speaker, that we will be voting on a different bill today. The 2007 legislation was rewritten. I believe the changes today are so fundamentally different that those Members who voted ``yes'' in 2007 should take the time to reconsider their votes.

There is another compelling reason for reconsideration when the Governor of Hawaii, the State that is impacted, has gone from an enthusiastic supporter of the 2007 bill to not supporting the rewritten bill. I hope many of my colleagues will recognize this dramatic change from just 3 years ago. The Governor remains a committed supporter of Native Hawaiian recognition. Her position has not changed. It is the bill that has been fundamentally changed and rewritten. Like the Governor, who supported the 2007 bill, they, too, have good reason to oppose this rewritten version today.

Now, Mr. Speaker, before concluding my opening statement, I want to take a moment to publicly state that I have a great deal of respect and affection for my colleague from Hawaii, Neil Abercrombie. He is departing the House at the end of this week, and I do regret that I am leading the opposition to his bill in his final days here in the House. To be very honest, Mr. Speaker, I would much rather be on the floor supporting his bipartisan legislation to write into law a 5-year plan to develop America's offshore oil and gas reserves. Regrettably, such reasonable legislation stands no chance of making it to the floor in this Congress, and I do regret that.

So I hope that my good friend knows that my opposition to this recognition bill is based on my view of the matter and is not a reflection of the high regard for which I hold him as my friend. I want to wish him well in his future endeavors--well, maybe not real, real well.

I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.

Reclaiming my time, I hope the gentleman has checked with the Ethics Committee; but having been a long-time member, I gladly accept that from my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my remarks, the gentleman from Hawaii certainly will be missed.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

If the gentleman's the last speaker, then I am the last speaker on my side. I yield myself the balance of the time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, just let me kind of summarize some of the overreaching debate that we've had here today.

This issue has been around this Congress for over 10 years, and this issue has had broad support within the State of Hawaii, Mr. Speaker, for over 10 years. And the underlying bill, before we will vote on the substitute, the underlying bill has broad support in the State of Hawaii.

But now we are going to have an amendment that was not written in public, and, in fact, as I mentioned in my earlier remarks, Governor Lingle is opposed to this approach on this bill, even though she agrees wholeheartedly with the issue of recognition for Native Hawaiians.

So, Mr. Speaker, I take everybody's word that's involved in this that it will be worked out to everybody's satisfaction. But, Mr. Speaker, why should we, on the floor of the House----

With that, Mr. Speaker, I just urge my colleagues to vote against the substitute. I'll talk about that later.

Will the gentleman yield?

I am deeply touched by your remarks. Your friendship is something I treasure and value. I am so taken by it, as a matter of fact, that I wonder if you would allow me to present you with a token of my esteem and my regard for you. These chocolate-covered macadamia nuts from Hawaii, I think, are just what you need right now. If you would allow me to come over and present them to you, that will give you an opportunity to contemplate as to whether or not, out of regard for our friendship and affection for each other, you will actually support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that the Ethics Committee, the Parliamentarian and the Speaker of the House of Representatives have assured me that, if you can consume it on the premises, it's okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Doc. My regard for you and for all of the Members is, of course, something that, I trust, is understood by all. I see my good friend Don Young there as well.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is an enabling bill. It establishes a process. The core of this bill assures that a Native Hawaiian Government has the same powers and sovereign immunity as other native governments, and this is consistent with the history of the legal discussions and court cases that have taken place over such a long period of time.

Since the passage of the bill in the Resources Committee, we have had 2 months of discussions with the Hawaii State Attorney General. As a result, we have made numerous changes in the substitute amendment, and have added several pages of new text to make the State more comfortable with how a native government interacts with the State government.

This is, in fact, my amendment, and I wanted to assure the minority on the floor--I don't think there is a minority here. Doc is quite right. It's not a question of Republican versus Democrat or majority versus minority. It is a question of perspective as to what is appropriate with regard to Native Hawaiians and other native people and how they establish relationships both with local governments and State governments in the United States of America.

So this has not been something behind closed doors. Quite the opposite. It has been a full and complete discussion with the Governor and with the Attorney General, and I think that is reflected in the Governor's statement.

In conversation with Governor Lingle today, we concluded that we would agree to disagree. As Representative Hastings has indicated, she continues to support the legislative object of the bill, and I want to assure the House that her administration will not be disadvantaged in any way in any negotiations undertaken upon the passage and signing of this bill.

As a candidate for Governor myself, I am completely comfortable with the language of the substitute, and believe that no Governor, regardless of who it may be, will be disadvantaged. The substitute amendment treats a Native Hawaiian entity as any other native government, and it follows literally centuries of existing Native American law.

Native Hawaiians are not a race. They are a native indigenous people of the United States. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that legislation enacted to address the special concerns and conditions of native people of the United States does not constitute discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity. The sovereign status of Indian tribes, recognized by the Constitution, was later extended to Alaska natives as indigenous people, and Representative Young can attest to that in his remarks. On this same basis then, Congress has enacted legislation on multiple occasions for the aboriginal, indigenous people of Hawaii.

Absent the substitute, H.R. 2314 would unduly limit the power of the Native Hawaiian governing entity, upon recognition, to accomplish the ordinary and customary activities of any other native organization, such as providing for the welfare of their children or for the health care of its members. The substitute amendment then will ensure that the Native Hawaiian governing entity will have the same powers and authorities that other tribal governments exercise today.

The Native Hawaiian Government will have sovereign immunity, as I indicated, the same as other native governments--no more, no less. This is not a new provision. Under the bill passed by the House in the last Congress, the Native Hawaiian governing entity would also have had sovereign immunity once it had been federally recognized.

In support of this bill are the Congressional Delegation of Hawaii, the National Congress of American Indians, the Alaska Federation of Natives, et cetera, et cetera. The Native American Caucus, under Representatives Kildee and Cole, as caucus Chairs, are supportive as are the Native Hawaiian organizations, such as the Sovereign Council of Hawaiian Homestead Organizations, the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Local political leaders in both houses of the legislature and numerous resolutions from both of those bodies are in support.

I could not take leave of the floor, Mr. Speaker, without mentioning the following:

It is one thing for Representative Hastings or Young or Rahall or myself and others to take to the floor, but without staff support, it simply couldn't be done.

Our friend, an institutional giant of the Resources Committee, Marie Howard, is retiring from the Natural Resources Committee. I want to commend her, not just for the work on this bill, but for all of the devotion that she has had to the House.

Janet Erickson is taking her place as staff director for Indian Affairs.

In addition to Marie and Janet, Rick Healy and Jim Zoia have been heavily involved in bringing this bill to the floor. Their efforts are deeply appreciated by everyone.

Countless hours of staff time in the administration--both departmental and within the White House--have been put forward.

As has been indicated, Mr. Speaker, this bill has passed out of the House Natural Resources Committee four times already. It has passed from the House floor twice under the leadership of as diverse a group of Chairs as Jim Hansen, Don Young, George Miller, and Nick Rahall. I note as well that the bill has passed under the leadership of Speaker Dennis Hastert and under the leadership of my good friend Tom DeLay. It is not ideological. It is nonpartisan. It is the culmination of a legislative lifetime for me, and it is the last occasion I will have to address the House as I take my leave.

Mr. Speaker, I love this House. I admire and respect every Member. It has been a privilege for me to be first sworn in as the last person to be sworn in by Speaker Tip O'Neill. I take my leave today with profound respect, admiration and affection for every Member of this House of Representatives. This is the people's House. You can only enter it upon the fact of having been elected by your constituents. They have placed their faith and trust in us, and I extend my faith and trust that this House will continue the great tradition of democracy.

I want to say to one and all that I love you, and I love this House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2314, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2009 and a substitute amendment that I will offer on the House floor. This is legislation that the Hawaii Congressional delegation has been working on for more than 10 years and it is a privilege to see this progress through the legislative process as my time in Congress comes to an end.

The purpose of the bill is to provide a process for the reorganization of the Native Hawaiian governing entity for the purposes of a federally recognized government-to-government relationship. The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act would provide Native Hawaiians the same right of self-governance and self-determination that are afforded to other indigenous peoples.

Since Hawaii was annexed as a territory, the United States has treated Native Hawaiians in a manner similar to that of American Indians and Alaska Natives. This bill would formalize that relationship and establish parity in federal policies towards all of our indigenous peoples.

I would also like to provide supporting documentation on the sections of H.R. 2314 primarily affected by the amendment in the nature of a substitute that I am offering on the House floor today. The following is additional language on Sections 3, 9 and 10.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all my colleagues here today, and I want to thank those especially who have risen in opposition. This is what our democracy is all about. My only regret in extending my aloha to those who may not feel able to vote for the bill today is that you have not had an opportunity, perhaps, to visit with, to understand, and to comprehend what it means to be a Native Hawaiian.

It is, of course, very easy for someone to say well, how can you do that; you came from somewhere else.

I was born and raised just outside Buffalo, New York. I came to Hawaii some 50 years ago, with statehood, given the opportunity to go to the University of Hawaii as a graduate teaching assistant. And the first thing that happened to me as I came that great distance, across the continent and across the ocean, then in a Pan American Clipper, it took 10 hours just to get from the coast to Hawaii. And when I took that first breath of Hawaiian air and saw the gorgeous curves of the island of Oahu, Diamondhead, Waikiki, and the first evening, taken to Manoa Valley, where I now reside, it was as if destiny had called.

And the first contact that I had was with my Chinese Hawaiian friend, Solomon Lu, God rest his soul, whose family took me in and treated me as one of their own. And that's what Hawaii is all about.

Mr. Speaker, this is not about race. This is about the aloha spirit. This is about the rainbow State of Hawaii. This is about Native Hawaiians who give us the host culture and the fundamental sense of who we are as human beings. And the diversity that defines us in Hawaii that does not divide us is the kind of diversity and definition we need in this House of Representatives, that we need in the United States of America.

This is Hawaii's gift to the United States. It is its gift to the world, the spirit of aloha. And in that same spirit of aloha, I ask for a vote favorably on behalf of the Native Hawaiian recognition bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2314, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, and I thank my good friend Congressman Young from Alaska for his remarks.

Long denied the recognition and rights accorded to America's other indigenous people, this bill will finally enable Native Hawaiians to embark on their long-awaited process of achieving self-determination. I would like to thank Chairman Rahall for his leadership and general support of this important bill. And, of course, I want to recognize and thank my friend Congressman Abercrombie, the bill's chief sponsor, for his years of advocacy for this bill and for his dedicated service to our State and to our country. It is fitting that one of his last legislative actions before his departure from this body will be on the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, a bill that we both care deeply about.

How we treat our native indigenous people reflects our values and who we are as a country. Clearly there is much in the history of our interactions with the native people of what is now the United States that makes us less than proud. The American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians, all indigenous people, have suffered at the hands of our government. But one of the great attributes of America has always been the ability to look objectively at our history, learn from it, and, when possible, to make amends.

H.R. 2314 has been more than 10 years in the making. It has been a deliberative and open legislative process. There have been 12 congressional hearings on this bill, five of which were held in Hawaii. It has been marked up by committees in both Chambers. The House has passed this bill twice, in 2000 and again in 2007. We have a bill now that is constitutional and one that the House should again pass.

The goals and purposes of this bill are consistent with the history of the Native Hawaiian people and the record of the United States' involvement in Hawaii. The bill is also consistent with the over 160 existing Federal laws that promote the welfare of the Native Hawaiian people by, among other things, helping them to preserve their culture and return to their lands. Building on that history, H.R. 2314 will formalize the special political and legal relationship between the United States and the Native Hawaiians by providing a process through which the Native Hawaiian community can reorganize its governing entity within this relationship.

The Kingdom of Hawaii was overthrown in 1893. Hawaii's last monarch, Queen Liliuokalani, was deposed by an armed group of businessmen and sugar planters, who were American by birth or heritage, with the critical support of the U.S. troops. The queen agreed to relinquish her thrown under protest to avoid bloodshed. She believed the United States, with which Hawaii had diplomatic relations, would do the right thing and restore her to the thrown.

It's important to note that the sovereign nation of Hawaii had treaties with other nations besides the United States, including Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and Russia. As we now know, despite the objections of U.S. President Grover Cleveland, the injustice of the overthrow of an independent sovereign nation was allowed to stand and the Republic of Hawaii was established.

In 1898, the United States annexed Hawaii. Prior to annexation, a petition drive organized by Native Hawaiians secured signatures of almost two-thirds of the Native Hawaiian population who opposed annexation. The total was 29,000 signatures out of an estimated Native Hawaiian population of 40,000. As a further historical note, the Native Hawaiian population prior to Western contact numbered between a conservative estimate of 300,000 to as many as 1 million Native Hawaiians.

The siege of Native Hawaiian culture continued after annexation. The Republic of Hawaii prohibited the use of the Hawaiian language in schools. Everyday use of the Hawaiian language diminished greatly and was in danger of dying out. Hula dancing, which had been suppressed by the missionaries and then restored by King Kalakaua, who preceded Queen Liliuokalani, survived but did not flourish. Hawaiians were pressured to assimilate and much of their vibrant culture was lost or went underground.

In 1903, Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalanianaole was elected to serve as Hawaii's delegate to Congress. And one of his most notable achievements was the passage of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920, which set aside some 200,000 acres of land for Native Hawaiians. The reason for the legislation was the landless status of so many Native Hawaiians who were displaced by newcomers to the islands and who became the most disadvantaged population in their native land. Congress passed the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, which is still in force, in recognition of its responsibility toward Native Hawaiians.

As with other indigenous people, Native Hawaiian views on land tenure were different from that of the newcomers, resulting in loss of much of the land that had been traditionally occupied and cultivated by Native Hawaiians. They lost these lands to these newcomers.

Hawaii became a State in 1959. Beginning in the late 1960s and early 1970s, a Native Hawaiian cultural rediscovery began in music, hula, language, and other aspects of the culture. This cultural renaissance was inspired by hula masters or kumu hula who helped bring back ancient and traditional hula, musicians and vocalists who brought back traditional music and sang in the Hawaiian language, and political leaders who sought to protect Hawaii's sacred places and natural beauty.

This flourishing of Hawaiian culture was not met with fear in Hawaii but with joy and celebration and an increased connection with each other. People of all ethnicities in Hawaii respect and honor the Native Hawaiian culture. The idea of self-determination by Native Hawaiians is regarded by most of our residents as just because we understand Hawaii's history and the importance of our host culture.

In closing, it is well established that the United States Constitution grants Congress broad general powers to legislate and respect the native people, and these are powers that the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently described as ``plenary and exclusive.'' Congress's plenary authority over Indian affairs includes the power to authorize and prescribe the process by which Indian tribes and aboriginal people organize or reorganize for purposes of carrying out a government-to-government relationship with the United States.

The State of Hawaii motto, which was also the motto of the Kingdom of Hawaii, is ``Ua mau ke ea o ka aina i ka pono,'' which translates to ``the life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness.'' Native Hawaiians, like American Indians and Alaska Natives, have an inherent sovereignty based on their status as indigenous, aboriginal people. I urge your support of H.R. 2314.

Mahalo nui loa. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1083, I call up the bill (H.R. 2314) 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, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 2134.

Mr. Speaker, the history of these United States is replete with glory. From the moment we broke the bonds of tyranny and declared independence to the severe tests we endured to maintain our union of States during the Civil War, to developments in science, medicine, and technology,

we as a Nation advanced for the benefit of the entire world. But throughout much of this history, our treatment of indigenous populations has been found wanting. The very policy that the United States advanced toward Native Americans from destruction to assimilation to reservation were conflicting and did not usually produce favorable results, at least from the perspective of the Native American.

Today, we are considering a measure which seeks to rectify a wrong that occurred 117 years ago. On January 17, 1893, the legitimate Kingdom of Hawaii was overthrown by American speculators with the active participation of the U.S. military. Five years after this overthrow, Hawaii was annexed to the United States and the lands of the indigenous population were lost to sugar plantations. Their health, education, and economic standing diminished greatly, a saga that has been repeated again and again with respect to Native Americans throughout our country.

The measure we are considering today is not a restitution measure, nor is it an outright recognition measure. What it would do is create a process by which the Native Hawaiian governing body would be reorganized, and the political and legal relationship with the United States would be reaffirmed.

I think it is important to note what this bill does not do: It does not allow for gaming; it does not provide for the transfer of any lands; it does not change civil or criminal jurisdiction by the State or Federal Governments; and it does not provide for any new eligibility into Indian programs.

Following reorganization of a governing body, the bill authorizes negotiation among the Federal, State, and Native Hawaiian governing entities to address certain powers and authorities. Any changes in these areas would require enactment of additional Federal and possibly State legislation.

Beginning in 1920, Congress began passing legislation specifically for the benefit of Native Hawaiians. To date, over 160 laws have been enacted to provide the Native Hawaiian community with everything from housing to repatriation of Hawaiian human remains from the Nation's museums. In each case, Congress understood its right and responsibility to enact laws affecting the native peoples of Hawaii similar to natives of the other 49 States. This is not a matter of race; it is a matter of Congress properly dealing with the indigenous populations as expressly sanctioned by the Constitution of the United States.

To allege that the Congress cannot engage in legislation of the pending nature regarding Native Hawaiians is to ignore the fact that there are 564 Federally recognized Indian tribes in this country. The bill before us today is similar legislation that has passed the House in previous Congresses. During the 106th Congress, we passed a similar bill under suspension of the rules when the Republicans held the majority. That was under Tom DeLay's watch, but what a different tune we will hear today from the other side. Similar legislation also passed during last Congress by a large majority.

So I urge my colleagues to vote to fulfill our constitutional responsibility toward indigenous people residing in the United States and vote for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the author of the pending legislation, I would like to make a couple of comments and praise him for his hard work and for his determination, persistence and patience on the pending matter.

For 20 years, Neil Abercrombie and I have served together on our Natural Resources Committee. We have fought many battles together, and I have always been proud to call him my friend--a unique friend, I might add at that--and I'm not even getting any chocolate-covered macadamia nuts this evening.

He has always been able to work together with Members of differing views and backgrounds. He has always remained decent, fair-minded, able to reach across the aisle both politically and philosophically, and I find that a truly commendable feature of this gentleman.

As we have already heard from the minority side, he will be leaving the Congress at the end of this week, but I can tell him that his mark on this institution will live on much longer after he has returned to his beloved Hawaii and to his other pursuits. He has been a champion of all Native Americans during his time in this Congress. It is a testament to Neil that he will spend his last days in this body fighting for the rights of Native Hawaiians.

It is now, indeed, my honor to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).

I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud at this moment to yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hirono), who has been instrumental as well in passing this legislation and bringing it, that is, to the point that we are now experiencing.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 5 minutes to another valued member of our Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from American Samoa, Mr. Eni Faleomavaega.

(Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).

I yield the gentleman 5 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, we're ready to close when the other side is. Is the gentleman from Washington ready to close?

Mr. Speaker, I'm very happy to yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).