Providing for consideration of 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.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself as much 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 this amendment. As I said in my opening statement, this amendment was crafted in a manner that has become the hallmark of this Democrat-led House, this behind closed doors, with very little time for the American people or the people of Hawaii to review it. It has been available for public review, Mr. Speaker, for less than 48 hours.

Just last night, Hawaii's Governor, Linda Lingle, a strong supporter of Native Hawaiian recognition, announced her opposition to this substitute.

As introduced, the basic bill, H.R. 2314, provides that matters such as transferring lands and preempting Federal and State civil, criminal, and tax jurisdiction must be subject to negotiation with and the consent of the State of Hawaii and the U.S. Congress.

But this substitute short circuits that public process. It immediately preempts the State of Hawaii's jurisdiction over civil, tax, and possibly criminal matters. All the Native Hawaiian entity would have to do is undertake any activity in the name of an official government action and immunity from the State authority applies.

The substitute makes a number of major revisions, all written in secret, away from public view. And let me, Mr. Speaker, just highlight a few:

It creates a new membership criteria that is six pages in length. They do not require one to reside in Hawaii to be a member of this newly created entity.

Second, these six pages of membership criteria are ultimately meaningless. Once the governing entity is formally recognized, it may discard these criteria and grant, deny, or revoke membership for any reason.

In the substitute, section 6C-1 establishes the White House as the lead agency to implement this act.

Mr. Speaker, this unreasonably injects the political operatives of the White House into the formation of the governing entity.

A new section 7 also requires the Attorney General to assign a Department of Justice attorney to assist and protect the government entity. This will wrongfully color the objectivity of the Justice Department when a challenge of the constitutionality of this act is inevitably made. And, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced there will be one made.

Mr. Speaker, there are fundamental changes from the original bill that deserve more scrutiny than we can provide on the House floor today because we've only had, as I mentioned, 48 hours to look at it.

But let me repeat that perhaps the most objectionable provisions are the ones in which the race-based entity is immunized from lawsuits in any Federal or State court, and shielded from State civil, tax, and possibly criminal jurisdiction.

Now, I realize this debate has been going on. I realize the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) has attempted to accommodate the objections of Governor Lingle and the Attorney General of Hawaii, and he should really be commended for that effort. But the accommodations, at least thus far, do not resolve their fundamental problems with this bill, which is the preemption of State civil, taxation, and possibly criminal jurisdiction without the consent of the State.

Governor Lingle, as I mentioned, last night formally announced her opposition to this substitute. In referring to the changes made by the substitute, the Governor said, ``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.''

Mr. Speaker, perhaps this impasse could have been avoided if the Governor and the Attorney General had been privy to those negotiations, at least to the details where they could or could not agree. But, again, those decisions were kept from these people apparently because they did not agree with this substitute.

Mr. Speaker, then what will be the practical result of this substitute if it becomes law? Does it mean the native entity can construct a government building for its officers and employees in violation of State zoning laws? Does it permit the entity to discharge waste material in violation of State law? Will it prevent anyone from enforcing contracts made with the entity?

Mr. Speaker, if this bill becomes law, those questions are left unanswered. And so perhaps we will learn the answers to these questions after it's too late. The State will be unable to enforce its laws and regulations over the entity because of the new provisions in this substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to emphasize this point. It is not reasonable to roll over the sovereign rights of a State. And it is especially not reasonable when the Governor of that State, in this case Governor Lingle--who has long been a proponent of the principles embodied in this issue--disagrees and cannot support the amendment in the nature of a substitute that we are discussing here tonight.

For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge and ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this substitute.

Statement by Governor Linda Lingle on the Native Hawaiian Government

Reorganization Act

``For more than seven years, my administration and I have

strongly supported recognition for Native Hawaiians and

supported the Akaka Bill.

``We have supported a bill that would set up a process of

recognition first, followed by negotiations between the

Native Hawaiian governing entity, the State of Hawai`i, and

the United States. Once that was completed, it would be

followed by the Native Hawaiian governing entity's exercise

of governmental powers and authorities.

``Amendments made to the bill in December 2009 turned that

process around. The current bill establishes that the Native

Hawaiian governing entity would start with broad governmental

powers and authorities, with negotiations to follow.

``Although I believe the original plan to negotiate first

makes more sense, my administration has tried to work with

the Hawai`i Congressional delegation on the new structure to

establish governing powers first, with negotiations to

follow.

``Ultimately, although we had good and productive

discussions, the current draft of the bill is not one I can

support.

``The basic problem as I see it, is that in the current

version of the bill, the `governmental' (non-commercial)

activities of the Native Hawaiian governing entity, its

employees, and its officers, will be almost completely free

from State and County regulation, including free from those

laws and rules that protect the health and safety of

Hawai`i's people, and protect the environment. `Governmental'

activity is a broad undefined term that can encompass almost

any non-commercial activity.

``This structure will, in my opinion, promote divisiveness

and litigation, rather than negotiation and resolution.

``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

Hawai`i.

``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

Hawai`i.

``My decision to not support the current version of the

Akaka Bill is done with a heavy heart, because I so strongly

believe in recognition for Native Hawaiians.

``If the bill in its current form passes the House of

Representatives, I would hope it can be amended in the United

States Senate.''

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire how much time on both sides remains.

Mr. Speaker, I will yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, in the exchange between my friend from American Samoa and my friend from Hawaii, the issue was brought up that Governor Lingle was contacted today and that there would be a way to try to satisfy her concerns, and I don't doubt at all that that effort will be tried. Hopefully it will be successful. But let me just review where we were.

When we started the process, when we started this Congress, the original text of H.R. 2314 was something that Governor Lingle endorsed. The Senate bill, which I think was identical or very close, she also endorsed that. But now with the action of the other body, with the Senate in passing what is commonly referred to as the Akaka amendment, which is similar to what we are debating here today, the Governor does not support that.

Now we have the base bill here which the Governor does support, and we're debating now a substitute--which I hope doesn't pass but I am a realist. And it may pass. And now we will have a bill in both Houses or two bills, one in each House, in which the Governor disagrees with.

Now, if you're negotiating in good faith, it would seem to me that you should at least start with the position where the Governor of the affected State is in agreement with what you're trying to do and that's not the case today if the substitute were to pass.

Now, again, I am going to say that I take my good friend from Hawaii at his word that he is going to negotiate. Maybe if he was the only negotiator it could be worked out. I don't know because I don't know what is going on behind those doors. Nobody knows, unfortunately.

I would be happy to yield to my friend.

Well, reclaiming my time, maybe we could work together on that right now if that would be the case.

Mr. Speaker, I am simply pointing this out because this is evolving into a process, and who is being left out of this process happens to be the elected Governor of the State of Hawaii. And to me that is regretful.

With that, I will reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Reference was made to how this would affect the laws of Hawaii.

Let me read from the Abercrombie substitute, page 51, line 1H: The Native American governing entity shall be immune from any lawsuit in any Federal or State court, with some exceptions as I had noted earlier.

On the same page, page 51 of the Abercrombie substitute, line 18: Governmental nonbusiness, noncommercial activities undertaken by the Native Hawaiian government entity shall not be subject to the regulatory or taxation authority of the State of Hawaii.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am just pointing out this is what the substitute says, and these are the concerns that the Attorney General of the State of Hawaii and the Governor of Hawaii have, because we all know when we are writing laws here that the word ``shall'' as opposed to ``may'' has very, very strong meaning, and in both cases it says ``shall.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could inquire of my friend from Hawaii if there are any more speakers on their side of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, once again, I want to congratulate and commend my good friend from Hawaii, because I know he has been working on this all the time that he has been here and probably before. But I just fundamentally disagree with the approaches taken with his substitute simply because, at least in the broadest sense, this is the only State that is affected by this legislation, the State of Hawaii.

Why should we push forward when the Governor of this State does not agree with the substitute and when the chief legal officer has some question, apparently--in fact, it is not apparent, it is pretty obvious--with some of the remarks I think that my friend just made as it relates to laws and regulations to the State of Hawaii?

Since this legislation only affects one State, wouldn't it be prudent for this body and representatives of the other 49 States to suggest to the State of Hawaii and all their elected officials, Why don't you come up with something that you can fundamentally agree on? But that has not been the case. It has not been the case in the other body, and, if this substitute passes, it will not be the case in this body. And that disturbs me. That disturbs me that we completely apparently don't want to take into consideration their concerns on issues that affect the citizens of the State of Hawaii.

So it is for those reasons, Mr. Speaker, that I urge my colleagues to vote against the Abercrombie substitute; because if the Abercrombie substitute is defeated, we will now have a bill that the Governor of Hawaii can support. That is a good starting point in future negotiations if the House or the Senate, the other body, were to pass this legislation.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Abercrombie amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment made in order under the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, my amendment simply requires a statewide vote of approval in Hawaii before the Federal recognition is extended to the Native Hawaiian entity.

The use of a statewide vote in Hawaii is not uncommon. For example, it has been used to establish staggered terms for the State Senate, to modify the term length for the State Tax Commission, to issue bonds for private schools, and to establish residency requirements for candidates seeking higher office.

My amendment merely proposes that before Congress changes the civil rights of all Hawaiians and establishes a two-tiered government in Hawaii, one of which is based on an individual's ancestry and race, a vote of all Hawaiians should be held to approve these changes.

The most important statewide vote held in Hawaii occurred in 1959, when 94.3 percent of Hawaiians voted in favor of the Hawaiian Admissions Act in joining the Union as one unified State. When the outcome of the statewide vote was published, there was no footnote indicating that Native Hawaiians would be separated from their neighbors as a distinct political unit.

In fact, there is ample testimony and statements from public officials describing the racial harmony in the melting pot that was and still is Hawaiian culture. This is not to say Native Hawaiians should not have a distinct culture and history though, Mr. Speaker. We all honor and respect their culture and its contributions to all Americans, but this does not mean that there must be a separate legal and political status for them just as there must not be a separate legal and political status for anyone else based on their race and ancestry. It would be a grave mistake for Congress to impose this new separate government affecting the citizens of Hawaii without their consent, as H.R. 2314 proposes to do.

I must point out that even if my amendment is adopted, Mr. Speaker, it will not relieve the serious concerns that many of my colleagues and constitutional experts outside of Congress have with the underlying subject of this legislation, but what this amendment does do is that it puts the question to the people this legislation affects most, the citizens of Hawaii. In 1959, as I said, 94-plus percent of Hawaiians voted for statehood. Today, Hawaiians should be afforded a statewide vote on the question of creating a separate government based on race.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, just in response, the State of Hawaii can and does hold statewide votes during general elections. Article 17 of the Hawaii Constitution describes the process for holding such votes, and it takes the action of the legislature. This is consistent with Hawaii's political culture.

Since 1994, for example, the State of Hawaii has considered 25 different statewide votes. They include a number of things, and I talked about that in my opening remarks. But Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that if we were to pass this bill, article 17 would come into play, because I believe in all likelihood, because of recent polling, the legislature of Hawaii would say, you know, we have the ability to put this to a vote; maybe we ought to do this since we are creating another governmental entity that has different rules and regulations than the State of Hawaii. That seems self-evident to me. My amendment simply facilitates that by saying that that should happen and it can happen under article 17 of the Hawaiian Constitution.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Let me just make reference to the 1959 vote. The vote was not whether you accept statehood--because if they had voted no, they could not have been a State--the question is whether they wanted statehood. Over 94 percent said yes, they want statehood. So that is a little bit of semantics there, but it is very important.

This issue to me is equally as important because the vote there said we want to become part of the United States as a unified State. This action that we are debating here today could divide the State of Hawaii. They ought to have the opportunity to vote. So I urge my colleagues to vote for the Hastings amendment.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order under the rule.

Mr. Speaker, in support of our substitute amendment, the amendment ensures that the Native Hawaiian governing entity will have the same governmental authorities and sovereign immunity of other native governments.

The Abercrombie amendment, the substitute amendment, follows centuries of well-established Federal law. The amendment is supported by the National Congress of American Indians, the Alaska Federation of Natives and other tribal organizations. President Obama supports the substitute amendment, and I quote, ``as it adds important clarifications to craft a durable pathway forward.''

Mr. Speaker, the amendment in the nature of a substitute further clarifies that pending negotiations and subsequent implementation legislation with that, the following will occur: There will be no Indian Country within Hawaii. The United States will not take land into trust nor restrict alien ability of land owned by the Native Hawaiian governing entity. The governing entity may not exercise certain powers and authorities such as jurisdiction over non-Native Hawaiian individuals without their consent. And the State of Hawaii will retain regulatory and taxation authority over Native Hawaiians and the Native Hawaiian governing entity.

Mr. Speaker, the Native Hawaiian government reorganization does as follows: Establishes a process for the recognition of a single Native Hawaiian governing entity; establishes a U.S. office for Native Hawaiian relations in the Department of the Interior to consult with other Federal agencies and the State of Hawaii; establishes a Native Hawaiian interagency coordinating group; authorizes United States-State of Hawaii Native Hawaiian governing entity negotiations based on the following: the transfer of lands, natural resources and other assets; the exercise of governmental authority over any lands or resources; the exercise of civil and criminal jurisdiction; and grievances regarding assertions of historical wrongs committed against the Native Hawaiians by the United States or the State of Hawaii. It prohibits gaming by Native Hawaiian governing entities and Native Hawaiians. It prohibits the Native Hawaiian governing entity from being eligible for any new Indian programs to which they are not already included.

Let me say then, in conclusion, what the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act does not do. It does not recognize the Native Hawaiian government upon passage of this bill. It does not exempt the Native Hawaiian government from any provision of the U.S. Constitution. It does not exempt the Native Hawaiian government from any provision of Federal law. It does not exempt the Native Hawaiian governing entity from taxation. It does not authorize a Native Hawaiian government entity to secede. It does not alter the civil or criminal jurisdiction of the United States or the State of Hawaii. And finally, it does not allow for the transfer of land or any authority of land to a Native Hawaiian governing entity.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).

That is correct.

Yes. Not everyone may have been on the floor or listening at the time that I indicated that I had a conversation with the Governor this afternoon, and I indicated to her that I would say specifically on the

floor that we have agreed to disagree, that she supports the object of the bill--as has been indicated by Representative Hastings quite accurately--but that in this disagreement over how to proceed legislatively, I commented both to her and I've commented on the floor and in conversations private and elsewhere that legislation is a process and that this is not theology. And as a result of it being a legislative process, it may not be perfect in every regard, but I am content and comfortable with the idea that whoever is Governor, including the present Governor for the remainder of her term, that she will not be disadvantaged nor will any other Governor be disadvantaged in any negotiations that take place with the native governing agency.

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

I think the answer from the most practical point of view is the passage of the Hawaiian Homes Act of 1921. The Congress obviously recognized that there was a distinctive entity in the category of Native Hawaiians as a logical extension of the previous constitutional history regarding native people.

Will the gentleman yield?

Perhaps you want to put that in as an amendment, that I should be the negotiator.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to my colleague and good friend from Hawaii, Mazie Hirono.

Mr. Speaker, can you tell us the time remaining on both sides?

And the gentleman from Washington has the privilege of closing, does he not?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the Speaker of the House, the Honorable Nancy Pelosi.

No. I want to speak one more time, and I will be the final speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record a letter favoring the legislation, the substitute, from the National Congress of American Indians; the Alaska Federation of Natives; the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement; the Sovereign Councils of the Hawaiian Homelands Assembly; the President of the Hawaii State Senate, the Honorable Colleen Hanabusa; and the Osage Nation from the Office of the Principal Chief.

National Congress of

American Indians,

February 23, 2010.

Hon. Neil Abercrombie,

House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Senator Daniel Akaka,

U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

Hon. Mazie Hirono,

House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Daniel Inouye,

U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Honorable Members: The National Congress of American

Indians fully supports the Native Hawaiian people in their

quest for self-determination and self-governance, and has for

many years. (See NCAI Resolution PHX-03-004.) This week, the

Native Hawaiian Reorganization Act of 2009 (H.R. 2314) is

expected to be amended on the floor of the House of

Representatives and subsequently passed through Congress.

NCAI supports the amendment as a way to ensure that

Congress has a strong basis for treating Native Hawaiians as

a distinct native community, and that the Act is

constitutionally sound. Through the deliberative process with

the Department of Justice, the Senate Committee on Indian

Affairs and with legal scholars with expertise in federal

Indian policy, Representative Abercrombie's amendment has

addressed these concerns.

NCAI has demonstrated repeated commitment to Native

Hawaiian self-governance and sovereignty. Over the past ten

years, we have passed resolutions and steadfastly supported

legislation encouraging the formation of a Native Hawaiian

governing entity. NCAI supports Representative Abercrombie's

proposed amendment to grant Native Hawaiians the self-

determination and self-government they justly deserve.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Johnson Pata,

Executive Director.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Hawaii State Attorney General argues that granting the Native Hawaiian governing entity inherent powers could have an adverse impact on Hawaii, and I think that is the thrust, essentially, of the critique that has been made about the legislation this afternoon and this early evening.

In response, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the Members, and to yourself, of course, that the current bill language gives the Native Hawaiian governing entity no powers that are currently exercised by other government entities until negotiated. This would prevent the entity from providing general assistance to its members or caring for a needy child, absent the amendment as a substitute.

The substitute amendment resolves this by acknowledging certain inherent powers of the governing entity upon recognition, the same inherent powers that other native governments possess today; no more, no less. This is not, therefore, a radical notion. By definition, this is what Federal recognition does: It acknowledges that an entity is a quasi-sovereign tribal government. The acknowledged inherent powers of the entity are limited by language in the amendment, in the substitute amendment that states, and I quote:

``Nothing in this act shall preempt Federal or State authority over Native Hawaiians or their property under existing law.''

Upon recognition, the entity will have no land akin to Indian country over which it could exercise jurisdiction. Since some inherent powers are tied to having such land, like certain regulatory authorities, the entity will not be able to exercise those powers.

Finally, the negotiations process will further modify the powers and authority of the governing entity by virtue of the negotiation themselves.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I request that those Members who have some trepidation about voting for the amendment in the nature of a substitute reflect that we believe, those of us who support it--and it was certainly my intention in offering the amendment to address those concerns in a positive way and in a legislatively viable way.

I would ask at this time in closing, Mr. Speaker, that those Members who come to the floor to vote tonight consider voting for it, and I earnestly solicit the favorable attention of all members in voting for the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my good colleague and friend, Mr. Hastings from Washington State, I have to oppose this amendment because it has no precedent--or indeed any place I believe in Federal law that has been in place for well over 150 years as that law relates to Native governments.

Under our Constitution, the citizens of the United States are the only citizens who are authorized and recognized as having a right to have a say in the laws which govern our Nation, be they Federal statutes or amendments to our Constitution. In a similar manner, the citizens of one State in our Union do not get to weigh in on the laws of another State or any proposed amendments to another State's constitution. Put simply, they cannot vote for changes in the law of a State for which they are not citizens. It goes without saying that foreign governments have no role to play in the formulation of the laws of the United States or the U.S. Constitution.

All of these fundamental principles have in their foundation the fact that each government is a separate sovereign, and only the citizens of that sovereign government may determine what governmental powers and authorities that sovereign government may exercise. It is no different for native governments in the United States.

The largest native government in the United States is the Navajo Nation. It is situated in four States. Because they are not citizens of the Navajo Nation, the non-Navajo citizens of the States of Arizona, New Mexico, Utah and Colorado do not, under our constitutional principles, formulate, amend, or approve the governing documents either of the constitution or the laws of the Navajo Nation.

In like manner, under our Federal statuary and constitutional framework, the non-Indian citizens of Washington State do not have the right to approve the constitution or the laws of the 28 Indian tribal governments in the State of Washington, nor do the citizens of any other State have the right, under our Federal Constitution or Federal laws, to approve the governing documents, the constitutions, of the native governments in their States if they are not citizens of the native government.

I would suggest to my colleagues that they vote down the Hastings amendment on the basis that it is an inherent conflict of interest.

If the gentleman's premise is that without regard to citizenship in a sovereign government, any citizen of the United States should have a right to vote to approve the organic governing documents of another sovereign government, then every American would have a right to determine the laws of every State in the Union. The citizens of Vermont could vote to amend the constitution of the State of California. The citizens of Utah could vote to legalize gaming in another State, even though the laws of Utah criminally prohibit all forms of gaming.

This is counter to our constitutional family of governments in which each sovereign government and its citizens has the right to determine its own laws and be governed by those laws.

I would suggest to my colleagues that to even take a step in this direction would create constitutional chaos in our Federal system as well as in the laws which govern each State and each Native government. This is not one of the fundamental principles on which this country was founded, nor does it have a place in our constitutional system of governments.

I will take the first few seconds of it, Mr. Speaker, because I believe this will be the last discussion of both the amendments and of the bill prior to voting, to thank Mr. Flake for his friendship over these years and to say to him that I admire his independent spirit; I admire his devotion to this House; I admire his steadfast sense of responsibility in the various amendments that he offers. I wish I could support it on the basis of that friendship and in my admiration for him.

Yet I would like to say in that context--and I hope I am stating the purpose of the amendment correctly--that Mr. Flake wants to require any native governing entity to comply with the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. If I had to summarize it in a sentence, that's the way I would put it.

In the course of his remarks, he asked, Why not make sure? I think that's a perfectly reasonable request, but my contention would be, in asking that the amendment not be voted favorably upon, that precisely what he seeks to succeed in with his amendment is exactly what is in the bill, itself, which is in the amendment as a substitute. Mr. Flake's amendment then is duplicative of current Federal law.

Only after a thoughtful and deliberate process did Congress impose most of the provisions on the Bill of Rights on tribes through the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968. The Equal Protection and Due Process provisions of the Bill of Rights were included verbatim in the Indian Civil Rights Act.

The Indian Civil Rights Act specifically states, ``No Indian tribe in exercising the powers of self-government shall deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws or deprive any person of liberty or property without due process of law.''

In section 1302, Constitutional Rights, again quoting, ``No Indian tribe in exercising powers of self-government shall:

``No. 8: deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws or deprive any person of liberty or property without due process of law.''

The Flake amendment essentially then ignores the provision of H.R. 2314, as amended, should we pass the substitute.

The bill applies the Indian Civil Rights Act to the entity, the Native Hawaiian entity, and it requires the Secretary of the Interior to certify that the Native Hawaiian governing entity is in compliance with Federal law and that its governing documents provide for the protection of the civil rights of the citizens of the Native Hawaiian governing entity as well.

Thus, the Flake amendment, as I indicated, I believe, is a duplication, and would actually create a double standard for the Native Hawaiian governing entity, not treating them as other federally recognized tribal governments are today.

Finally, I believe the amendment could be subject to broad interpretation, the scope of which is unclear. As a result, litigation would likely flourish in the Federal courts, which might take years to resolve as the courts would have to examine the U.S. Constitution, Federal law and numerous Federal court decisions upholding the current law, which already imposes the same equal protection guarantees on tribes that Mr. Flake's amendment seeks to impose.

Therefore, I ask, in the context of my admiration and respect for Mr. Flake, that his amendment, however, be defeated.

With that, Mr. Speaker, if I have time remaining, I would like to take the occasion then to thank Mr. Hastings, Mr. Flake and all of those on the Resources Committee--Republican and Democratic alike--who have been my colleagues and friends all these years. I think the Resources Committee is one of the most unappreciated committees, unappreciated in the sense of comprehension by, perhaps, even Members of Congress and by the public at large. No committee deals with as detailed and as difficult a set of circumstances as the Resources Committee does. My respect and admiration for all its members abides with me as I take leave of the House.

Mr. Speaker, ``aloha'' to you. ``Aloha'' to the House of Representatives. ``Aloha'' to all Members here tonight.

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.