Floor Statements

Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5019, the ``Home Star Energy Retrofit Act of 2010.'' First I want to thank the chief cosponsor Congressman Peter Welch and all cosponsors for their support. I also want to commend Chairman Henry Waxman of the House Committees on Energy and Commerce, Chairman Sander Levin of the Committee on Ways and Means; and Chairman Edolphus Towns of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, for their leadership on this important issue.

Madam Chair, the ``Home Star Energy Retrofit Act of 2010'' continues the road to economic recovery that was set in motion last year when President Obama and the U.S. Congress approved $787 billion in stimulus funding. Between January 1 and March 31 of this year alone 682,779 jobs were funded through recovery funding. Yet, more work remains to be done to sustain recovery and strengthen our economy and the piece of legislation before us today pursues this policy objective. It will provide further assistance to . . . facilitate energy conservation in homes across the Nation; create more jobs in the home construction and remodeling industries; promote domestic energy efficient products and equipments; and offer financing for homeowners to improve energy efficiency in homes. Overall, the economic benefits from this bill will provide more support for the many families across the country.

Madam Chair, data shows that American homes account for about 33 percent of the Nation's total electricity usage and an estimated 22 percent of all energy use in the United States. Because of high energy consumption in the country there are substantial economic benefits to be gained from installing energy-efficient improvements in every home across the Nation. A study by the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University supports this assessment noting that ``energy efficiency is one area where the economic benefits of green remodeling are readily apparent,'' and that ``the introduction of green systems could have a tremendous impact on national consumption.''

The same study also finds that nearly all of the 130 million homes across the country can be retrofitted with energy efficient improvements to realize savings in energy and utility costs. More significantly, retrofit and renovation work provide significant employment opportunities for the capable workers.

In essence, H.R. 5019 will create a national rebate program that will allow consumers to purchase and install at affordable costs, energy- efficient equipments and materials in existing homes. It consists of two-tracks, Silver and Gold programs, for long term and short term gains. Under the Silver program, rebates are awarded to contractors and vendors that are installing energy efficiency measures and from there the savings are passed on to the consumers. Rebates will apply to the cost of purchase, assembly and installation of insulation, windows, window film, sealants, doors,

heating and cooling replacement systems, and water heaters that meet minimum energy efficiency requirements. Overall, the homeowners may get up to $3000 in rebates.

Under the Gold Star program, rebates are available for energy retrofit works that will result in improvements in energy efficiency by at least 20 percent for the entire home. It rewards homeowners who conduct a comprehensive energy audit and implement a full complement of measures to reduce energy use throughout the home.

Madam Chair, I am pleased that this rebate program will be available in the U.S. Territories including my district of American Samoa. While much remains to be seen on how this rebate program will be administered and implemented, I am glad nevertheless that the federal government is doing its share to help families in American Samoa and throughout the United States.

I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 5019.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution recognizing the United States' longstanding ties with Thailand and our strong wish for a peaceful, democratic resolution to the country's ongoing political problems.

In an important development on Monday, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva announced that he plans to hold new elections on November 14, 2010, based on a plan which calls on all parties to join together in upholding the monarchy, on the government to carry out economic and political reforms, and on the nation to create an independent committee to investigate casualties resulting from the clash of April 10, 2010.

Fortunately, the response from most quarters to the Prime Minister's suggestions has been positive. The plan and the elections offer a process that I believe can serve as the basis for an amicable end to the dispute. The resolution I am offering today is meant to encourage that process, to demonstrate America's commitment to Thailand and its people and to convey our sincere hope that Thailand returns to democracy, stability and the rule of law.

Thailand is one of United States' closest friends and most dependable allies. Ours is a partnership steeped in history. Indeed, the first treaty we concluded with an Asian nation was with Thailand in 1833, with the signing of the Treaty of Amity and Commerce between Siam and the United States. In 1954, we forged a military alliance, and in 2003 the United States designated Thailand a major non-NATO ally. Thailand contributed troops and support for U.S. military operations in Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Thailand is also a major trading partner of the United States, a regional leader, a force for stability in Southeast Asia and a country with which we share common values and interests. We have always appreciated Thailand's many international contributions, and we respect and admire its unique culture.

Of course, only the Thai people can chart their way toward settlement of the conflict. As a close friend of Thailand, however, the United States should, I believe, offer its support and demonstrate its concern. This resolution does just that, encouraging all sides to address the country's political problems peacefully and democratically, based on the national reconciliation plan offered by the Prime Minister.

I might add that I introduced this resolution on ``Chattra Mongkhon.'' It is on this day that the country commemorates the ascension to the throne of His Majesty, King Bhumibol Adulyadej. It is a day when all Thai people pay their respects to His Majesty and wish him a long, healthy and happy life. I can think of no better way for this body to honor His Majesty and the people of Thailand than to voice support for peaceful reconciliation on this important day. I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution and moving it toward speedy adoption.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend the Honorable Iwao Matsuda, a Member of the Diet of Japan and visionary leader of the United States-Japan Bilateral Legislative Exchange Program, LEP, and of the United States-Japan-South Korea Trilateral Legislative Exchange Program, TLEP. Matsuda-san will soon be retiring after decades of exemplary public service to his own country and to a more peaceful and prosperous Northeast Asia.

The United States-Japan relationship is as important as ever, and Matsuda's contributions to that relationship and to the LEP have been vital and unswerving. His leadership and the sorts of exchanges exemplified by the LEP and TLEP form the foundation for our strong ties.

This is an especially important year in United States-Japan relations as it marks the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between Japan and the United States. The treaty forms the bedrock of our bilateral relationship, which in turn plays an indispensable role in ensuring security and prosperity for the United States and Japan, as well as for the broader Asia-Pacific.

Both of our countries are guided by a shared respect for democracy and freedom, by the enduring ties we have forged over the last 65 years and by the personal relationships formed through the tireless work of leaders such as Matsuda-san.

Matsuda-san's distinguished career began at Japan's Ministry of International Trade and Industry, MITI, where he served for more than 20 years. This period included a posting in the United States where he did critical work on the expanding bilateral trade relationship.

After leaving the civil service, he ran successfully for public office, serving for 10 years in the Lower House of the Diet. During his tenure, when United States-Japan trade frictions were becoming ever more heated, Matsuda-san had the foresight to develop the United States-Japan Legislative Exchange Program, LEP, which brought Members of the Diet and U.S. Congress together semiannually to address key issues in United States-Japan relations.

As a long-time participant in the LEP, I can personally attest to its valuable contribution toward improving ties and finding common ground. And today it is as valuable as ever given the new problems confronting the United States-Japan bilateral relationship, including basing issues and other matters. Matsuda-san's exemplary leadership through the LEP has demonstrated that even the most vexing issues can be resolved when viewed in the context of our shared interests, values and goals.

In 1998, Matsuda-san was elected to serve in the Upper House of the Diet and held increasingly important government posts, including Senior Vice Minister of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Chairman of the House of Councilors' Research Committee on International Affairs and, ultimately, Minister of State for Science and Technology Policy, Food Safety and Information Technology in the cabinet of Junichiro Koizumi. During this period, he created the United States-Japan-South Korea Trilateral Legislative Exchange Program, TLEP, a complement to the LEP and an organization that has demonstrably improved ties among the three nations.

This year marks the LEP's 22d year and 43d consecutive session and the TLEP's 7th year and 12th consecutive session. All of us in this body are grateful for Matsuda-san's leadership and vision. Even with his retirement, Matsuda-san's legacy will endure. The LEP and TLEP will continue and the bilateral and trilateral relationships will advance so long as we hold to the principles of open discussion, friendship and trust that Matsuda-san has exemplified.

We will miss Iwao Matsuda. But I know he will continue to play a critical role in advancing relations among the United States, Japan and South Korea and that we will always be able to count on his friendship and support.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend the distinguished service of His Excellency Phiane Philakone, the Ambassador of the Lao People's Democratic Republic (PDR) to the United States. Ambassador Philakone will soon be returning to Laos and, for historical purposes, I want to publicly acknowledge the good work he has done on behalf of his country.

For more than three years, Ambassador Philakone has honorably carried out his responsibilities as Laos' Ambassador to the United States. During his service, he has worked with the House Foreign Affairs' Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and the Global Environment, which I chair, to bring greater attention to the issue of Unexploded Ordnance in Laos.

Because of him, I was able to visit Laos on two occasions and gain a firsthand understanding of the catastrophic and lasting effects of U.S. Air Force bombing operations in Laos during the Vietnam War. To this very day, these deadly, unexploded ordnances continue to claim the lives of a people who are not and never were at war with us, and unless we rectify this now, the loss of life will go on and on, tomorrow, the next day, and every day thereafter. I thank Ambassador Philakone for his leadership on this issue.

Before Ambassador Philakone accepted his assignment to come to the U.S. in February 2007, he devoted six years as Ambassador of the Lao PDR to the Republic of the Philippines. From 1996-1999, he was the Deputy Governor of the Lao Central Bank. Prior to that position, he served as President of a joint venture commercial bank in the Lao PDR.

Ambassador Philakone has held other distinguished banking posts, including Managing Director of a state commercial bank and Director of Administration of the Lao Development Bank. Additionally, from 1976- 1989, he was the Director of Research of the Bank of the Lao PDR.

In addition to his extensive practical experience, Ambassador Philakone has academic training in policy and diplomatic matters. He received a Bachelor's Degree in Law and Administration from Institut Royal de Droit et d'Administration in Laos and an advanced degree from Institut International d'Administration Publique (IIAP) in France. He is fluent in English, French, and Thai.

Ambassador Philakone and his wife, Mrs. Somchit Philakone, have three children, and I extend to them my highest regards and best wishes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the ``Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2009.'' I want to thank Chairman Bob Filner and my colleagues in the U.S. House Committee on Veterans' Affairs for their support and for bringing this bill before the House for consideration. I also want to commend the chief cosponsor of this bill and Chairman of the US Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, my good friend from the State of Hawaii, Senator Akaka, for continuing to look out for the interest and the needs of those that have served in the armed forces of this great nation.

The bill before us today reaffirms our commitment to provide for the needs and to share the sacrifice borne by our veterans. Among other things, it will: provide immediate support for veteran caregivers; improve health care access for women veterans; improve rural health care delivery; and increase access to mental health support for servicemembers and veterans.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that Congress recognizes the needs of the families and those that are taking care of our veterans. Today, more servicemembers are surviving the wounds of war than those injured in previous conflicts. For example, the ratio of wounded per fatality averaged approximately 1.7 in the first two World Wars compared to 3.1 in the Korea and Vietnam wars. This number jumped to 7.1 during Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OEF/OIF), mainly due to improved body armor and superior battlefield medicine techniques.

As a result of this improvement, there is a growing need to provide continuing care to those injured and wounded from recent conflicts once they reach veterans status. Providing support and resources to caregivers and attendants that take care of our wounded and injured veterans is of a major concern.

The bill before us today makes it easier for a veteran to be accompanied by a family member when traveling to and from a treatment facility. In addition to mileage, lodging and subsistence will be provided for, especially for those veterans that want to stay close to their families. A caregiver support program is also created where caregivers of veterans of all eras would receive supportive services such as caregiver training and education, counseling and mental health services, and respite care. More significantly, our veterans would receive better treatment and quality of care.

I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this important piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in total opposition to all my friends who oppose the legislation on the other side of the aisle, but in full support of this most historical bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the ``Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010.''

Mr. Speaker, we stand today at the threshold of a momentous occasion in the history of this great Nation. It is momentous in the sense that this long-overdue, comprehensive overhaul of our national Healthcare system is desperately needed to address rising medical costs and to extend coverage to our fellow Americans that are often left to fend for themselves.

I want to thank Speaker Nancy Pelosi for her leadership and for bringing this important issue to the Floor for consideration.

I also want to express my gratitude to President Obama and the Democratic House and Senate leadership for their willingness to work hand-in-hand with the Congressional Delegates to resolve our concerns and reduce the health disparity facing the Territories.

On the House side, I want to particularly thank both Chairman Henry Waxman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and Chairman Charles Rangel of the Committee on Ways and Means for their unwavering support in addressing the concerns put forward by the Congressional Delegates. On the Senate side, I also want to thank Senator Chris Dodd and Senator Charles Schumer for their assistance.

Most of all, I wish to recognize my fellow Congressional Delegates, Donna Christensen of the Virgin Islands for her work in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Gregorio Sablan of the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas and Pedro Pierluisi of Puerto Rico for their advocacy in the House Committee on Education and Labor, and Madeleine Bordallo of Guam for her leadership as the Chairwoman of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus Healthcare Task Force. Together, we worked relentlessly to bring about change for those we represent.

This entire Healthcare overhaul would not have been possible without the support of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Congressional Black Caucus, and the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC), and I want to especially recognize the efforts of Congressman Mike Honda, Chairman of CAPAC.

While the bill we have before us today is far from ideal and not the perfect solution to all our health care issues, it is imperative and also the constitutional responsibility of the Members of this Chamber to act in the best interest of those who are suffering, particularly in light of the heart-wrenching stories told of people dying, parents worrying and families living in fear because they have no health insurance. Just last year, it was estimated that 625 Americans lost their health insurance every hour.

So even though we may not agree on how to make this right, we can agree that to do nothing is not an acceptable course of action. Our fellow Americans deserve our help.

The some 4.4 million Americans living in the Territories also deserve to be recognized and this is why I am pleased that this bill acknowledges that we are part of the American family. Although much remains to be desired, this bill is a step towards bringing the Territories to parity with the States. Under Section 1204, the Territories--Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands--will receive an additional $6.3 billion over a 9 year period in federal funding for Medicaid costs.

American Samoa will receive $285.5 million in total Medicaid spending for the next 9 years, or an increase of over $180 million.

This legislation also provides $1 billion for the Territories to participate in the Health Insurance Exchange program, the centerpiece of this Healthcare Reform Legislation. Each of the Territories will be afforded the option to participate or transfer their allocation to their Medicaid program. If American Samoa chooses not to participate in the Exchange, the Territory will receive an additional $18.75 million for its Medicaid program.

With the historic passage of this legislation and the increased federal funding it will provide, I am hopeful that the American Samoa Government and Legislature will do all it can to provide quality and affordable health care for the people of American Samoa.

In 2005, the findings of the American Samoa Health Survey estimated that only 25 percent of the population had insurance and, with the rising cost of health care, it is highly likely that the number of insured in American Samoa has declined drastically since that time.

But now, with a significant increase in federal funding, ASG has the tools it needs to improve healthcare and health coverage for the residents of the Territory and to meet the challenges which have been exacerbated by the Territory's remote location and the exponential rate of chronic diseases.

In light of the current political environment surrounding healthcare reform, President Obama's own testimony in Ohio last week best summarizes the necessity and the very reason why Congress must pass this legislation today. The President said, ``I'm here because of my own mother's story. She died of cancer, and in the last six months of her life, she was on the phone in her hospital room arguing with insurance companies instead of focusing on getting well and spending time with her family.''

Millions of Americans share the same story, and passage of this legislation is critical for the welfare of all Americans. This legislation is not only about saving money and reducing the deficit or addressing the billions wasted in Medicare. Passage of this legislation is about providing for those who cannot provide for themselves. It is about the fundamental right of healthcare for all.

As Martin Luther King once said, ``Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.''

At its best, this bill is a step toward equality and justice for all Americans and, for this reason, I urge my colleagues to support this historic legislation.

I thank the gentleman, the distinguished chairman of our Committee on Foreign Affairs, for allowing me to say a few words concerning the proposed resolution.

Madam Speaker, despite my reservations about our strategy in Afghanistan, I do want to say that I have the utmost respect for the gentleman from Ohio for bringing this resolution forward for the purpose of having a public debate among our colleagues.

I also want to say that I associate myself with the remarks made earlier by my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) in asking, Why not, why not debate the issue? We should not deprive ourselves of understanding a little more about the situation that we face right now in Afghanistan.

Madam Speaker, after 8 long years in that country for the United States and after 30 years for the Afghan people, I remain skeptical that adding 30,000 U.S. troops and that focusing more on local and provincial levels of government will bring lasting stability and success in Afghanistan. I do, of course, want our new strategy to succeed, and I know that our military and civilian personnel on the ground will give it a supreme effort. They represent the very best this country has to offer.

Yet Afghanistan's history is replete with the failures of outside powers, or countries, in their attempting to take over or to remake the Afghan people--from Alexander the Great, to Genghis Khan, to the United Kingdom, to the Soviet Union, and now even to us.

It is my understanding that by adding 30,000 additional troops to the 68,000 troops that we now have on the ground in Afghanistan, we are adding approximately 100,000 additional troops, with NATO forces, to go after some 27,000 Taliban and a couple of hundred al Qaeda.

By the way, I wanted to ask, Was it the Taliban or the al Qaeda people who attacked us on 9/11? I believe it was al Qaeda, and 15 of the 19 terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 were Saudi Arabs. It's interesting to note that.

Another thing is that, indeed, most objective observers believe it will take a commitment of years, perhaps even decades, by our troops and that it will take hundreds of billions of dollars by our taxpayers for Afghanistan to overcome its divisions and to develop and to maintain a stable, functional government.

When I weigh the likely costs in terms of lives and resources against the potential benefits for U.S. security, I am left wondering whether we are, in fact, on the right track.

As I am not a genius when it comes to military strategy, here is something that I am trying to figure out: the Taliban are Pashtuns, and 12 million Pashtuns live in Afghanistan. They make up almost 50 percent of Afghanistan's population. President Karzai is even a Pashtun. There are an additional 27 million Pashtuns who live on the other side of the border, right on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Is it any wonder we have had such a difficult time locating Osama bin Laden? He has been moving between Pakistan and Afghanistan for all of these years.

Madam Speaker, I do not believe invoking the 1973 War Powers Act to require the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan is appropriate at this time. In September 2001, Congress passed a joint resolution, signed by the President 4 days later, which granted the President the authority to use all necessary and appropriate forces against those whom he determined planned, authorized, committed or aided the September 11 attacks in 2001.

So, whether one agrees with the war in Afghanistan or not, whether one agrees with the administration's new strategy or not, there should be no doubt that House Concurrent Resolution 248, with all due respect to my friend from Ohio, is not the way to force a withdrawal of U.S. troops. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against this proposed resolution.

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 want to say that I fully support the gentleman's substitute amendment, and I want to ask if we could do a little colloquy in the process.

I note with interest there has been several references made by our friends on the opposite side concerning the Hawaii Admissions Act suggesting there was nothing whatsoever that Congress at will, as part of the provisions of the Hawaii Admissions Act, taking care of Native Hawaiians. And I believe this is something that I think our colleagues need to understand a little better, that after the Hawaii Admissions Act, it didn't mean that we just completely forget anything and everything to do with the needs of Native Hawaiians.

Am I correct on that?

I also want to ask my good friend, as you had indicated and our friends have indicated Governor Lingle's opposition to the proposed substitute, am I to perceive that certainly Governor Lingle, with all due respect, is entitled to her opinion and some of the issues affecting the proposed legislation which she has supported for the past 7 years.

Do you see anything that cannot be done in a way that by accepting this proposed substitute we can still take corrective action, whatever it might be, the concerns that she might have later on?

There's also been a reference made, I ask my colleague, that the idea of comparing Native Hawaiians to American Indians is somewhat absurd.

I would like to ask the gentleman if such a description, as our friends on the other side have suggested, is totally irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, there are only three truly indigenous aboriginal groupings under the sovereignty of the United States. The American Indians in the 48 continental States that we lived in with some 565 tribes fully recognized; there were some 100 other tribes not recognized, by the way.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I just want to say 565 tribes are recognized by the Federal Government. Does it stand a chance to suggest that Native Hawaiians cannot be recognized in the same way giving some sense of self-esteem and dignity to the people who are Native Hawaiians to the State of Hawaii?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I have the utmost respect for my good friend, Mr. Hastings, for proposing his amendment, but I do have some very serious concerns about the amendment. In the first place, when we talk about the event that took place in 1959, it was a referendum of whether or not the voters or the people of Hawaii would accept statehood. What we are establishing here is a very dangerous precedent, in my humble opinion, so that for everything now we are going to be referring to referendums to State governments to tell us the will of the people of the State, when in fact this should be done that the Congress expresses that will for collectively all, on behalf of our Federal Government.

So I do oppose the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the service of my good friend, His Excellency Zhou Wenzhong, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the People's Republic of China to the United States. Ambassador Zhou is completing his term as Ambassador to the United States after more than five years of service.

During his long and distinguished career working for China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Zhou has been deeply involved in building United States-China relations serving as Attache and then Third Secretary of the Embassy of the People's Republic of China to the United States from 1978 to 1983, Deputy Consul General in San Francisco from 1987 to 1990, Deputy Director General of the Department of North American and Oceanian Affairs from 1993 to 1994, Consul General in Los Angeles from 1994 to 1995, Minister of the Embassy of the People's Republic of China to the United States from 1995 to 1998, Assistant Minister of Foreign Affairs from 2001 to 2003, Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs from 2003 to 2005 and, most recently, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the People's Republic to the United States from 2005 to 2010.

Ambassador Zhou has effectively represented his country with honor by ensuring constructive cooperation and effective communication between United States and Chinese leaders through many initiatives including the establishment of new senior-level political dialogues such as the United States-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue.

Ambassador Zhou has also been a strong advocate for deeper United States-China economic relations, helping Chinese companies to increase their investments in the United States and demonstrating to Americans the opportunities presented by markets in China. Ambassador Zhou has personally visited nearly every state in the United States to meet with American businesses and workers to promote bilateral economic relations.

Through frequent and productive communications with the United States Congress and by strengthening the United States-China Interparliamentary Exchange, Ambassador Zhou has helped foster mutual understanding and respect between the two governments.

Ambassador Zhou has also helped to inform America's understanding of China by overseeing numerous educational and cultural events during his time as Ambassador and, during his tenure, there has been a dramatic increase in people-to-people exchanges as more United States citizens travel to China and more Chinese citizens visit the United States.

For these and many other reasons, I pay special tribute to Ambassador Zhou and commend him for his leadership and tireless efforts in promoting goodwill between our governments and people. I offer Ambassador Zhou and his dear wife, Madame Xie, my sincere best wishes as they return to their home in China. They will be greatly missed.

Madam Speaker, amid regional combat, conflicts, and challenges, Kazakhstan assumed leadership this month of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), an organization of 56 member states with vast potential for strengthening regional and global cooperation, security, peace, and prosperity.

This is a remarkable historic achievement for a nation that only 19 years ago gained its independence from the former Soviet Union. It is also a recognition of the vision and leadership of Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev who has charted a course to establish not only a modem state but an emerging democracy.

In the early days of its statehood and under the leadership of President Nazarbayev, Kazakhstan demonstrated to the international community its commitment to nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation. It voluntarily renounced the world's fourth largest nuclear and missile arsenal and shut down the Semipalatinsk nuclear test site. This decision has enhanced global security and reduced the threat of weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of terrorists. Kazakhstan's experience qualifies it to lead the OSCE in its efforts to increase regional security.

Meanwhile, Kazakhstan has consistently demonstrated its commitment to the principles and values that OSCE member states embrace. The nation has achieved significant progress on democratization, human rights, and economic liberalization. This is no small feat for a country in which more than 140 different nationalities and 40 religions are represented. Yet surprisingly in Kazakhstan, these people and faiths coexist peaceably because of a commitment to the shared values of tolerance, understanding, cooperation, and unity.

Great steps have been made on the path of democracy, but many more strides must be taken before the goal is reached. That is why Kazakhstan views democracy not as a sprint but a marathon; its perspective is not for the short but the long term.

Because Kazakhstan understands the challenges of democracy-building and the importance of inter-ethnic and inter-faith dialogue to avoid or resolve conflict, this perspective and experience will serve it well in its OSCE leadership role.

Kazakhstan is a leading democratic force in Central Asia today, a region of growing strategic importance to the United States, the OSCE, and the world. Central Asia is where East and West meet. Increasingly, it is where much of our focus will and must be now and in the years ahead. As Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee overseeing this region, I can state this unequivocally. It is also the reason my colleague Representative Buck McKeon and I recently established the Congressional Caucus on Central Asia.

Kazakhstan moves and interacts with ease and confidence in its home region and the surrounding areas that include Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Iran--all areas where it has interests that make dialogue and cooperation possible but not involvement that precludes it. Because of this, Kazakhstan can function as an honest and trusted broker, helping the United States and other OSCE members. This can lead to improved East-West dialogue and, hopefully, to conflict resolution.

For all the strengths, experiences, and perspectives that Kazakhstan offers, OSCE member states' choice of this new democracy to lead the organization showed correct judgment and foresight in light of the challenges and threats confronting the world. President Nazarbayev has matched the OSCE's judgment and foresight in appointing Secretary of State-Foreign Minister Kanat Saudabayev to serve as the OSCE Chairman- in-Office. This skilled and seasoned diplomat, who once served as Kazakhstan's Ambassador to the United States, will bring to his new post and the OSCE the needed leadership and focus on measurable results.

His recent speech in Vienna outlining Kazakhstan's priorities during its OSCE chairmanship reveals a commitment to revitalize the organization, reestablish its relevance on key issues, and refocus it to achieve meaningful outcomes. I am encouraged by the vision he sketched. In a world where new crises often seemingly intractable, even insoluble--emerge almost daily, we need an OSCE infused with purpose and energy and committed to full engagement and results. Knowing the OSCE Chairman-in-Office as I do, I am confident that he can and will lead the organization to achieve the outcomes that all OSCE member states desire.

As a major step toward that end, I fully support the proposal that President Nazarbayev and OSCE Chairman-in-Office Saudabayev have put forward--namely, that of holding an OSCE summit. Not since 1999 has a summit been held. In my view, such an assembly would offer many advantages and opportunities to the United States and other OSCE member states for advancing the prospects and priorities of regional and global cooperation, security, peace, and prosperity.

The proposed summit warrants the United States' support and is worthy of our best efforts because it is in our national interest. For this reason, I call on President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton to help facilitate the summit through their good offices, and I look forward to working with Chairman-in-Office Saudabayev and the leaders of OSCE member states in any way I can to help execute the forward- looking vision that Kazakhstan has outlined for the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.

Madam Speaker, last week, on January 13, we marked the 107th anniversary of the first Korean immigrants to the United States. From those few Korean individuals who came in 1903 to Hawai'i, then a U.S. territory, the Korean American community has grown to nearly two million people.

For the first few decades of the 20th century, Korean immigration was impeded by U.S. law. Regrettably, until the 1960s, U.S. law refused to admit immigrants from East Asia. Fortunately, as attitudes about race and ethnicity changed and matured in the wake of the civil rights movement, these shameful barriers were removed. America became a land of opportunity not just for Europeans seeking refuge and comfort, but for people from Africa, Asia, and Latin America, as well.

Korean Americans have contributed immeasurably to our society and culture. They have raised families and built successful businesses, strong neighborhoods, active civic associations, churches, and charities. Korean Americans have served in the armed forces, been elected to public office, and been appointed to positions of authority in President Obama's administration.

In my capacity as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and the Global Environment, I have paid close attention to issues of concern to the Korean American community. With many Korean Americans still having family ties to the Korean Peninsula, they care deeply about the continuing resilience of the U.S.-Korea alliance. When I served in the U.S. Army in Vietnam in the 1960s, I met many Korean soldiers who fought side by side with Americans, just as Americans had fought side-by-side with Koreans in the Korean War a decade and a half earlier.

The close alliance between the United States and the Republic of Korea has included South Korea's important contributions to fighting terrorism around the world and promoting democracy and liberal values. The Republic of Korea has remained a steadfast ally of the United States and ought be considered America's greatest foreign policy success in the post-World War II era.

It is worth noting today that, later this year, we will be commemorating the 60th anniversary of the outbreak of the Korean War. Veterans of that conflict, both Korean and American, have strong feelings about the U.S.-Korea alliance. I have attended many ceremonies at which Korean War veterans pay tribute to their fallen comrades and share their memories of the battlefield. Many of them have returned to Korea in peacetime to visit the friends they made and--in some cases-- the families of their spouses.

Korean War veterans and members of the Korean American community are significant stakeholders in the maturation of the U.S.-Korea alliance, whether that means a security alliance in our mutual effort to denuclearize North Korea, whether it means growth in the number of Korean students who attend American colleges and universities, or whether it means broader and deeper business and trade ties.

The U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA), which was signed in June 2007 and awaits ratification and implementation, will bring substantial benefits to both of our countries. The U.S. International Trade Commission has forecast that the elimination of tariffs on U.S. goods under the KORUS FTA would increase the GDP of the United States by over $10 billion annually. The agreement will also eliminate regulatory and other non-tariff barriers that have historically restricted access by American farmers, manufacturers, and service providers to the South Korean market.

Korea's economy is beginning to recover from the worldwide recession, with a special emphasis on creating ``green jobs'' and encouraging growth in 21st century industries that look to the future. At the same time, Korea remains a major market for American goods and services, for agricultural products, raw materials, and finished goods.

With growing uncertainty about our economy, it is critically important that we make every effort to spur U.S. economic growth and create new American jobs through securing access to markets in which U.S. farmers and businesses can compete and succeed. The KORUS FTA stands to further increase U.S. exports to Korea and will generate new jobs for Americans. This agreement will be a triple-win--a win for workers, a win for businesses, and a win for consumers.

Beyond trade, the United States and Korea share similar values and goals. Both countries are democratic republics, both desire peace on the Korean Peninsula and work to assure that nuclear weapons do not proliferate in Northeast Asia, and both want to see economic growth and opportunity throughout the world.

It is in this context that Korea will host and chair a meeting of the G-20 in November 2010. It is a remarkable achievement and one that is emblematic of how far Korea has come considering that 60 years ago, it was a war torn nation. I am confident that Korea will set an ambitious agenda for the G-20 to include how nations can turn to ``Low Carbon, Green Growth'' sectors to spur economic growth in the aftermath of the global financial crisis.

Last August, I had the privilege of visiting Korea to receive an Honorary Doctorate from Chonbuk National University. I had numerous opportunities to engage in meaningful dialogue with our Korean friends on a host of issues. But above all, I was struck by the kind generosity and hospitality of the Korean people. The same has always been true of our Korean American friends as well.

Madam Speaker, this is why it is my honor to recognize January 13 as Korean American Day pursuant to House Resolution 487, which was passed in 2005 and introduced by my good friend Representative Tom Davis of Virginia. I urge my colleagues to offer their own expressions of support in recognizing the Korean American community and their achievements and the importance of a comprehensive U.S.-Korea alliance in diplomacy, business, and culture.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the distinguished service of my friend, His Excellency Abdulaziz Kamilov, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Republic of Uzbekistan to the United States.

With distinction, Ambassador Kamilov has represented Uzbekistan in the United States for the past seven years. Before he accepted his assignment to come to the United States in 2003, he was a State Advisor to the President of his home country.

Some three years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Mr. Kamilov became the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Uzbekistan, the highest diplomatic position in the newly-formed Republic. He served in this prestigious post for nine years.

Mr. Kamilov holds a Ph.D. in the History of International Relations and Foreign Policy. He was President of the University of World Economy and Diplomacy for almost a decade.

Ambassador Kamilov spent much of his early career in rigorous study of the Middle East. He held numerous positions in the Middle East Department of the Ministry of Foreign

Affairs of the USSR. He is fluent in English and Arabic.

His Excellency Kamilov is an experienced diplomat who understands that the U.S. and Uzbekistan have mutual interests, and our relationship has been immeasurably enhanced by his professionalism, intelligence and friendship.

At times when relations between our country and Uzbekistan were uncertain, Ambassador Kamilov remained steadfast, becoming a key figure in strengthening and rebuilding our security and economic alliance.

Ambassador Kamilov is to be commended for his loyalty in discharging his duties to his President, His Excellency Islam Karimov, and the people of Uzbekistan.

As Ambassador Kamilov moves on to new responsibilities and assignments, I extend to him and President Karimov my highest regards and best wishes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with you and our colleagues and to commend the CBS ``60 Minutes'' program that was aired last week on Sunday, January 17 of this year.

As it was narrated by CBS reporter Scott Pelley, the television program was called, ``American Samoa--Football Island.'' It highlighted the fact

that from an island of less than 70,000 people, there are more than 30 players of Samoan ancestry currently playing professional football in the National Football League and estimated more than 200 playing currently in Division I college football.

Indeed, it is estimated that a boy born to Samoan parents is 56 times more likely to get into the NFL than any other kid in the United States, period. This is an exceptional bit of information considering that the six little high schools that we have there in the program do not have locker rooms, no weight rooms for training, no proper equipment or other needed facilities and resources. This is also considering that most of these athletes do not start playing organized football until they're in high school.

For the first time this year, we have organized a Pop Warner football program. What is interesting about this, Mr. Speaker, is that a good number of these young Pop Warner players would be disqualified if they were playing in the U.S. for the simple reason that they were too big. I know this is true in the State of Hawaii where, in the Pop Warner program, many of these young Samoan football players had to organize their own ``Big Boys'' football program because they would be disqualified to play Pop Warner. I know this is true in the little town of Hauula in Laie in the State of Hawaii.

Now, I don't want to give the impression to my colleagues that Samoans are a lot of muscle and brawn but no brains; no, this is not true. I know from my own given experience when I played high school football in my alma mater, Kahuku High School in Hawaii, it was like a tradition that all Samoans would play the line, the quarterback would be the Japanese, the Filipinos would be the halfbacks, but the fullback would be a Samoan. Now all that has changed, we also play quarterback these days.

In American Samoa, there were no youth or development programs until this year when they started the American Youth Football Samoa program, but still coaches and recruiters crowd our little territory for raw talent. Mr. Speaker, it was important for the whole world to see some of the challenges that the kids of American Samoa have to go through to make it to the collegiate level so that they can afford an education and for most to play in the highest level of professional football.

The fact that a Samoan boy is 56 times more likely to get into the NFL is most interesting and can be attributed not only to the size of the people but to the values of the Samoan culture. From respect to discipline and making sure that there is respect in the process, one can appreciate that the young men and women of Samoan descent hold true these values of humility. I know that these athletes with these values would be welcomed by any coach in any sport.

I want to take this opportunity to recognize the Polynesian players who were fortunate enough to make it into this year's NFL Conference Championships and will be playing in New Orleans this weekend. They are Aaron Francisco of the Indianapolis Colts; Fili Moala, the Indianapolis Colts; Ropati Pitoitua, the New York Jets; Sione Pouha of the New York Jets; Naufahu Tahi of the Minnesota Vikings. I want to personally congratulate them and their families for their success.

Also, I want to offer special recognition for our first Samoan Polynesian of Tongan ancestry, Mr. Haloti Ngata of the Baltimore Ravens, who is not only headed to his first Pro Bowl in Florida after the Super Bowl, but today is also his 26th birthday. Haloti Ngata is in his fourth year in the NFL, was drafted by the Ravens in the first round of the 2006 NFL draft, and is a graduate of the University of Oregon. At 6 feet, 5 inches and almost 350 pounds, Haloti finished the year with more than 30 tackles, two sacks, and a forced fumble.

The success of this new generation of football players, Mr. Speaker, is a result of the pathway paved by pioneers like Samoan football player Al Lolotai, who played for the Washington Redskins in 1945, Charlie Ane of the Detroit Lions, Jack ``The Throwin' Samoan'' Thompson, Manu and his son Marques Tuiasosopo, Dan Saleaumua, Wilson Faumuina, Frank and his son Brandon Manumaleuna, Jesse Sapolu, Junior Seau, Troy Polamalu, Lofa Tatupu, Domata Peko, Rey Maualuga, Jonathan Fanene, Joe Salave`a, Pita Elisara, Esera Tuaolo, Falaniko and his brother Al Noga, Junior Ah You, and many others.

I am often asked why Samoan men have so much success on the football field. Well, there are many factors. I am reminded of the late Coach Vince Lombardi of the Green Bay Packers when he said that ``Football is like life. It requires perseverance, self-denial, hard work, sacrifice, dedication, and respect for authority.'' This is very much part of the heart and soul of the Samoan culture which centers on the importance of families sharing each other's needs and respect for others.

Madam Speaker, it is my great honor and pleasure to welcome Rev. Samuel Tialavea to the Chamber today. Rev. Tialavea, or ``Sam'' as he is popularly known in our Samoan community, is from my home district in American Samoa.

Rev. Tialavea is currently the General Secretary of the Congregational Christian Church of American Samoa, a position he has held now for some 8 years. He was appointed Secretariat of the Partnership Consultation Committee on Ministry and Mission of the United Church of Christ and the Congregational Christian Church, again, a post he has held for some 8 years now. He was ordained in the mid- 1990s, where he became pastor of the Bread of Life Church in Honolulu prior to his election as the General Secretary of the CCCAS.

This is a historic occasion for my district. To my knowledge, Rev. Tialavea is the first ever Samoan to give the opening prayer to begin a regular House congressional session.

I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge Rev. Tialavea's lovely wife, Fa'aipoipoga, who is present with us in the gallery. Also with her to witness this momentous occasion are Rev. Elder Leatulagi Faalevao, who is the vice chairman of the Congregational Christian Church, and his wife, Vagai; and Rev. Reupena Alo, who is the assistant to the General Secretary, and his wife, Deanne.

It is my distinct honor and privilege again to welcome to the House today my good friend, Rev. Samuel Tialavea, Sr.